pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Cc: Pierre C <lists@peufeu.com>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Dave Crooke <dcrooke@gmail.com>
Cc: Paul McGarry <paul@paulmcgarry.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: shared_buffers advice
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:20:58 -0300
Message-ID: <20100316222058.GI3037@alvh.no-ip.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <15417.1268776714@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <a056b1d41003101728h2bfe964cg43bf5ef1aabae14d@mail.gmail.com>
	<ca24673e1003152217q117b0fd3q7d2d75ff20185c8b@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B9F3302.4020900@2ndquadrant.com>
	<op.u9nrbeeteorkce@localhost>
	<8285.1268749832@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<407d949e1003160753o6e5faa48rabaa42f7548029b7@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100316213054.GG3037@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<15102.1268775566@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20100316214903.GH3037@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<15417.1268776714@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Tom Lane escribió:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > Tom Lane escribió:
> >> Reorder to what, though?  You still have the problem that we don't know
> >> much about the physical layout on-disk.
> 
> > Well, to block numbers as a first step.
> 
> fsync is a file-based operation, and we know exactly zip about the
> relative positions of different files on the disk.

Doh, right, I was thinking in the sync-file-range kind of API.


> > We had a customer that had a
> > performance problem because they were inserting lots of data to TOAST
> > tables, causing very frequent extensions.  I kept wondering whether an
> > allocation policy that allocated several new blocks at a time could be
> > useful (but I didn't try it).  This would also alleviate fragmentation,
> > thus helping the physical layout be more similar to logical block
> > numbers.
> 
> That's not going to do anything towards reducing the actual I/O volume.
> Although I suppose it might be useful if it just cuts the number of
> seeks.

Oh, they had no problems with I/O volume.  It was relation extension
lock that was heavily contended for them.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support



view thread (51+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <20100316222058.GI3037@alvh.no-ip.org>
Permalink:  ../20100316222058.GI3037@alvh.no-ip.org/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/20100316222058.GI3037@alvh.no-ip.org

 · 

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
  Cc: alvherre@commandprompt.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, gsstark@mit.edu, lists@peufeu.com, greg@2ndquadrant.com, dcrooke@gmail.com, paul@paulmcgarry.com
  Subject: Re: shared_buffers advice
  In-Reply-To: <20100316222058.GI3037@alvh.no-ip.org>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox