Re: [PATCH] Prefetch index pages for B-Tree index scans
| От | Greg Smith |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [PATCH] Prefetch index pages for B-Tree index scans |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 50932901.8030109@2ndQuadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Prefetch index pages for B-Tree index scans (Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] Prefetch index pages for B-Tree index scans
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/1/12 6:13 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: > posix_fadvise what's the trouble there, but the fact that the kernel > stops doing read-ahead when a call to posix_fadvise comes. I noticed > the performance hit, and checked the kernel's code. It effectively > changes the prediction mode from sequential to fadvise, negating the > (assumed) kernel's prefetch logic. That's really interesting. There was a patch submitted at one point to use POSIX_FADV_SEQUENTIAL on sequential scans, and that wasn't a repeatable improvement either, so it was canned at http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-10/msg01611.php The Linux posix_fadvise implementation never seemed like it was well liked by the kernel developers. Quirky stuff like this popped up all the time during that period, when effective_io_concurrency was being added. I wonder how far back the fadvise/read-ahead conflict goes back. > I've mused about the possibility to batch async_io requests, and use> the scatter/gather API instead of sending tons ofrequests to the> kernel. I think doing so would enable a zero-copy path that could very> possibly imply big speed improvementswhen memory bandwidth is the> bottleneck. Another possibly useful bit of history here for you. Greg Stark wrote a test program that used async I/O effectively on both Linux and Solaris. Unfortunately, it was hard to get that to work givenhow Postgres does its buffer I/O, and using processes instead of threads. This looks like the place he commented on why: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Multi-CPU-Queries-Feedback-and-or-suggestions-wanted-td1993361i20.html The part I think was relevant there from him: "In the libaio view of the world you initiate io and either get a callback or call another syscall to test if it's complete. Either approach has problems for Postgres. If the process that initiated io is in the middle of a long query it might take a long time, or not even never get back to complete the io. The callbacks use threads... And polling for completion has the problem that another process could be waiting on the io and can't issue a read as long as the first process has the buffer locked and io in progress. I think aio makes a lot more sense if you're using threads so you can start a thread to wait for the io to complete." -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: