pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
To: Matthew Wakeling <matthew@flymine.org>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: RAID arrays and performance
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:30:00 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0809181515380.7355@westnet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0809181417040.23198@aragorn.flymine.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0712041213490.3731@aragorn.flymine.org>
	<87lk8aiqf3.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.58.0712041247540.3731@aragorn.flymine.org>
	<475559F4.7060104@mark.mielke.cc>
	<Pine.LNX.4.58.0712041349380.3731@aragorn.flymine.org>
	<4755648C.90905@mark.mielke.cc>
	<Pine.LNX.4.58.0712041454110.3731@aragorn.flymine.org>
	<87bq96ii3b.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.58.0712041603490.3731@aragorn.flymine.org>
	<4755810E.4000707@mark.mielke.cc>
	<Pine.LNX.4.58.0712041637260.3731@aragorn.flymine.org>
	<87zlwq6yz9.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0801291417330.4642@aragorn.flymine.org>
	<87bq74vfys.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
	<alpine.DEB.1.10.0809181417040.23198@aragorn.flymine.org>

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Matthew Wakeling wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Gregory Stark wrote:

>> I have a patch which implements it for the low hanging fruit of bitmap 
>> index scans. it does it using an extra trip through the buffer manager 
>> which is the least invasive approach but not necessarily the best.
>
> Gregory - what's the status of that patch at the moment? Will it be making it 
> into a new version of Postgres, or are we waiting for it to be implemented 
> fully?

It and a related fadvise patch have been floating around the project queue 
for a while now.  I just sorted through all the various patches and 
mesasges related to this area and updated the list at 
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CommitFestInProgress#Pending_patches 
recently, I'm trying to kick back a broader reviewed version of this 
concept right now.

> It's just that our system is doing a lot of bitmap index scans at the moment, 
> and it'd help to be able to spread them across the 16 discs in the RAID 
> array. It's the bottleneck in our system at the moment.

If you have some specific bitmap index scan test case suggestions you can 
pass along (either publicly or in private to me, I can probably help 
anonymize them), that's one of the things that has been holding this up. 
Alternately, if you'd like to join in on testing this all out more help 
would certainly be welcome.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD



view thread (39+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0809181515380.7355@westnet.com>
Permalink:  ../Pine.GSO.4.64.0809181515380.7355@westnet.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/Pine.GSO.4.64.0809181515380.7355@westnet.com

 · 

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: gsmith@gregsmith.com, matthew@flymine.org
  Subject: Re: RAID arrays and performance
  In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0809181515380.7355@westnet.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