X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39169D9EEB;
	Mon,  3 Oct 2005 18:14:55 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 34956-06; Mon,  3 Oct 2005 21:14:50 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (server227.ethosmedia.com
	[209.128.84.227])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D5ACD9AA1;
	Mon,  3 Oct 2005 18:14:51 -0300 (ADT)
X-EthosMedia-Virus-Scanned: no infections found
Received: from [63.195.55.98] (account josh@agliodbs.com HELO spooky)
	by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8)
	with ESMTP id 8192379; Mon, 03 Oct 2005 14:17:17 -0700
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Organization: Aglio Database Solutions
To: "Jeffrey W. Baker" <jwbaker@acm.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A Better External Sort?
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 14:16:15 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.8
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
References: 
 <31833713.1128111650174.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
	<200510031334.02030.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<1128372151.28509.1.camel@toonses.gghcwest.com>
In-Reply-To: <1128372151.28509.1.camel@toonses.gghcwest.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200510031416.15620.josh@agliodbs.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.011 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011]
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200510/27
X-Sequence-Number: 14795

Jeff,

> > Nope, LOTS of testing, at OSDL, GreenPlum and Sun.   For comparison, A
> > Big-Name Proprietary Database doesn't get much more than that either.
>
> I find this claim very suspicious.  I get single-threaded reads in
> excess of 1GB/sec with XFS and > 250MB/sec with ext3.

Database reads?  Or raw FS reads?  It's not the same thing.

Also, we're talking *write speed* here, not read speed.

I also find *your* claim suspicious, since there's no way XFS is 300% faster 
than ext3 for the *general* case.

-- 
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco