From: | PFC <lists(at)boutiquenumerique(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "William Yu" <wyu(at)talisys(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Caching by Postgres |
Date: | 2005-08-23 23:29:42 |
Message-ID: | op.svzh7sqdth1vuj@localhost |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> Josh Berkus has already mentioned this as conventional wisdom as written
> by Oracle. This may also be legacy wisdom. Oracle/Sybase/etc has been
> around for a long time; it was probably a clear performance win way back
> when. Nowadays with how far open-source OS's have advanced, I'd take it
> with a grain of salt and do my own performance analysis. I suspect the
> big vendors wouldn't change their stance even if they knew it was no
> longer true due to the support hassles.
Reinvent a filesystem... that would be suicidal.
Now, Hans Reiser has expressed interest on the ReiserFS list in tweaking
his Reiser4 especially for Postgres. In his own words, he wants a "Killer
app for reiser4". Reiser4 will offser transactional semantics via a
special reiser4 syscall, so it might be possible, with a minimum of
changes to postgres (ie maybe just another sync mode besides fsync,
fdatasync et al) to use this. Other interesting details were exposed on
the reiser list, too (ie. a transactional filesystems can give ACID
guarantees to postgres without the need for fsync()).
Very interesting.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-08-23 23:36:08 | Re: Read/Write block sizes |
Previous Message | Michael Stone | 2005-08-23 23:24:24 | Re: Read/Write block sizes |