| From: | Samuel Gendler <sgendler(at)ideasculptor(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com, Neil Whelchel <neil(dot)whelchel(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Slow count(*) again... |
| Date: | 2010-10-12 03:58:45 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=WE-CsGVC3j4CX9ddGGsRZ3Mmk6aJGKk4NT=g6@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> This is a problem for the operating system to solve, and such solutions out
> there are already good enough that PostgreSQL has little reason to try and
> innovate in this area. I routinely see seq scan throughput double on Linux
> just by tweaking read-ahead from the tiny defaults to a sane value.
>
I spent some time going through the various tuning docs on the wiki whie
bringing some new hardware up and I can't remember seeing any discussion of
tweaking read-ahead at all in the normal performance-tuning references. Do
you have any documentation of the kinds of tweaking you have done and its
effects on different types of workloads?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Carey | 2010-10-12 04:06:07 | Re: Slow count(*) again... |
| Previous Message | Neil Whelchel | 2010-10-12 03:42:42 | Re: Slow count(*) again... |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Carey | 2010-10-12 04:06:07 | Re: Slow count(*) again... |
| Previous Message | Neil Whelchel | 2010-10-12 03:42:42 | Re: Slow count(*) again... |