Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Heikki Linnakangas ><hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote: >> I took a stab at using posix_fadvise() in ANALYZE. It turned out to >be very >> easy, patch attached. Your mileage may vary, but I'm seeing a nice >gain from >> this on my laptop. Taking a 30000 page sample of a table with 717717 >pages >> (ie. slightly larger than RAM), ANALYZE takes about 6 seconds without >the >> patch, and less than a second with the patch, with >> effective_io_concurrency=10. If anyone with a good test data set >loaded >> would like to test this and post some numbers, that would be great. > >Kernel version?
3.12, from Debian experimental. With an ssd drive and btrfs filesystem. Admittedly not your average database server setup, so it would be nice to get more reports from others. >I raised this issue on LKML, and, while I got no news on this front, >they might have silently fixed it. I'd have to check the sources >again. Maybe. Or maybe the heuristic read ahead isn't significant/helpful, when you're prefetching with posix_fadvise anyway. I - Heikki -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
