On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 23:29, Pierre-Frédéric Caillaud wrote:
> There is also the fact that syncing after every transaction could be
> changed to syncing every N transactions (N fixed or depending on the data
> size written by the transactions) which would be more efficient than the
> current behaviour with a sleep.
Uh, which "sleep" are you referring to?
Also, how would interacting with the filesystem's journal effect how
often we need to force-write the WAL to disk? (ISTM we need to sync
_something_ to disk when a transaction commits in order to maintain the
> There's fadvise to tell the OS to readahead on a seq scan (I think the OS
> detects it anyway)
Not perfectly, though; also, Linux will do a more aggressive readahead
if you tell it to do so via posix_fadvise().
> if there was a system call telling the OS "in the
> next seconds I'm going to read these chunks of data from this file (gives
> a list of offsets and lengths), could you put them in your cache in the
> most efficient order without seeking too much, so that when I read() them
> in random order, they will be in the cache already ?".
Specifies that the application expects to access the specified
data in the near future.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly