From: Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
To: Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz>
Cc: Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Cc: Joshua Marsh <icub3d@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 08:15:29 -0800
Message-ID: <BFA48FA1.14183%llonergan@greenplum.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <437E8DA5.1050703@paradise.net.nz>
Mark,
On 11/18/05 6:27 PM, "Mark Kirkwood" <markir@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> That too, meaning the business of 1 executor random reading a given
> relation file whilst another is sequentially scanning (some other) part
> of it....
I think it should actually improve things - each I/O will read 16MB into the
I/O cache, then the next scanner will seek for 10ms to get the next 16MB
into cache, etc. It should minimize the seek/data ratio nicely. As long as
the tables are contiguous it should rock and roll.
- Luke
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: llonergan@greenplum.com, markir@paradise.net.nz, pg@fastcrypt.com, gsstark@mit.edu, icub3d@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (
In-Reply-To: <BFA48FA1.14183%llonergan@greenplum.com>
* 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