Re: Slow count(*) again...

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Mladen Gogala
Тема Re: Slow count(*) again...
Дата
Msg-id 4CB28123.5080300@vmsinfo.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Slow count(*) again...  (Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Slow count(*) again...  (Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com>)
Re: Slow count(*) again...  (Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>)
Список pgsql-performance
  On 10/10/2010 8:27 PM, Joshua Tolley wrote:
> It was asserted that reading bigger chunks would help performance; a response
> suggested that, at least in Linux, setting readahead on a device would
> essentially do the same thing. Or that's what I got from the thread, anyway.
> I'm interested to know how similar performance might be between the large
> block size case and the large readahead case. Comments, anyone?
>

Craig maybe right, the fact that Oracle is doing direct I/O probably
does account for the difference. The fact is, however, that the question
about slow sequential scan appears with some regularity on PostgreSQL
forums. My guess that a larger chunk would be helpful may not be
correct, but I do believe that there is a problem with a too slow
sequential scan.  Bigger chunks are a very traditional solution which
may not work but the problem is still there.

--
Mladen Gogala
Sr. Oracle DBA
1500 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
(212) 329-5251
www.vmsinfo.com


В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Craig Ringer
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Slow count(*) again...
Следующее
От: Joshua Tolley
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Slow count(*) again...