On 22.12.2010 03:45, Rob Wultsch wrote:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Robert Haas<robertmh...@gmail.com>  wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Jim Nasby<j...@nasby.net>  wrote:
On Dec 19, 2010, at 1:10 AM, flyusa2010 fly wrote:
Does postgres make an effort to create a file with physically continuous blocks?

AFAIK all files are expanded as needed. I don't think there's any flags you can pass to 
the filesystem to tell it "this file will eventually be 1GB in size". So, we're 
basically at the mercy of the FS to try and keep things contiguous.

There have been some reports that we would do better on some
filesystems if we extended the file more than a block at a time, as we
do today.  However, AFAIK, no one is pursuing this ATM.

The has been found to be the case in the MySQL world, particularly
when ext3 is in use:

These seem to be about extending the transaction log, and we already pre-allocate the WAL. The WAL is repeatedly fsync'd, so I can understand that extending that in small chunks would hurt performance a lot, as the filesystem needs to flush the metadata changes to disk at every commit. However, that's not an issue with extending data files, they are only fsync'd at checkpoints.

It might well be advantageous to extend data files in larger chunks too, but it's probably nowhere near as important as with the WAL.

Also, InnoDB has an option for how much data should be allocated at
the end of a tablespace when it needs to grow:

Hmm, innodb_autoextend_increment seems more like what we're discussing here (http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/innodb-parameters.html#sysvar_innodb_autoextend_increment). If I'm reading that correctly, InnoDB defaults to extending files in 8MB chunks.

  Heikki Linnakangas
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to