From: | Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Sam Liddicott <sam(dot)liddicott(at)ananova(dot)com> |
Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 7.2.1 optimises very badly against 7.2 |
Date: | 2002-07-15 10:38:53 |
Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.44.0207151936370.497-100000@angelic.cynic.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> > From: Martijn van Oosterhout [mailto:kleptog(at)svana(dot)org]
> >
> > But if the planner chooses the seq scan two large
> > tables in parallel, the actual disk transfers degenerate to random access.
> > But only if they are on the same disk.
> >
> > Should postgres be worrying about this?
>
> I think it should. The same applies if two different queries are running
> together of the same disk; which is probably any DB with allow_connections>1
Well, should it then worry about read-ahead? On most OSes, it
doesn't actually degenerate to 1-block random reads; it degerates
to something along the lines of 8-block random reads.
Trying to optimized based on more than the very simplest and common ideas
about physical layout opens up a huge can of worms when you don't actually
have any real control over or knowledge of that layout.
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Haworth | 2002-07-15 11:12:08 | Re: Jan's Name (Was: Re: I am being interviewed by OReilly) |
Previous Message | Steve Brett | 2002-07-15 10:27:44 | okay so i deleted pg_log ..... |