So far I've seen no evidence that async I/O would help us, only a
lot
of wishful thinking.
is this thread moot? while researching this thread I came across
this
article: http://kerneltrap.org/node/6642 describing claims of 30%
performance boost when using posix_fadvise to ask the
So far I've seen no evidence that async I/O would help us, only a
lot
of wishful thinking.
is this thread moot? while researching this thread I came across this
article: http://kerneltrap.org/node/6642 describing claims of
30% performance boost when using posix_fadvise to ask the o/s
Yup, that would be the scenario where it helps (provided that you
have
a smart disk or a disk array and an intelligent OS aio
implementation).
It would be used to fetch the data pages pointed at from an index
leaf, or the next level index pages.
We measured the IO bandwidth difference
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 03:04:55PM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On 10/20/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So far I've seen no evidence that async I/O would help us, only a lot
of wishful thinking.
is this thread moot?
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 11:13:33AM +0530, NikhilS wrote:
Good idea, but async i/o is generally poorly supported.
Async i/o is stably supported on most *nix (apart from Linux 2.6.*) plus
Windows.
Guess it would be still worth it, since one fine day 2.6.* will start
supporting it properly too.
Good idea, but async i/o is generally poorly supported.
Only if it can be shown that async I/O actually results in an
improvement.
sure.
fix it. So, what is the bottleneck? Is PostgreSQL unable to
max out the I/O bandwidth? Where? Why?
Yup, that would be the scenario where it helps
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 05:37:48PM +0200, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
Yup, that would be the scenario where it helps (provided that you have
a smart disk or a disk array and an intelligent OS aio implementation).
It would be used to fetch the data pages pointed at from an index leaf,
or
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 10:05:01AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only if it can be shown that async I/O actually results in an improvement.
Currently, it's speculation, with the one trial implementation showing
little to no improvement. Support is a big word in the face of this
initial
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 10:05:01AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One would need to consider the PostgreSQL architecture, determine where
the bottleneck actually is, and understand why it is a bottleneck fully,
before one could decide how to fix it. So, what is the bottleneck?
I think Mark's
On 10/20/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So far I've seen no evidence that async I/O would help us, only a lot
of wishful thinking.
is this thread moot? while researching this thread I came across this
article: http://kerneltrap.org/node/6642 describing claims of 30%
performance boost
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 03:04:55PM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On 10/20/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So far I've seen no evidence that async I/O would help us, only a lot
of wishful thinking.
is this thread moot? while researching this thread I came across this
article:
On 10/21/06, Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 03:04:55PM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On 10/20/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So far I've seen no evidence that async I/O would help us, only a lot
of wishful thinking.
is this thread moot? while
12 matches
Mail list logo
