Re: There's random access and then there's random access
От | Mark Mielke |
---|---|
Тема | Re: There's random access and then there's random access |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4755A2E0.4090502@mark.mielke.cc обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: There's random access and then there's random access (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: There's random access and then there's random access
Re: There's random access and then there's random access |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:87ve7egxow.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com" type="cite"><pre wrap="">"Gregory Stark" <aclass="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:stark@enterprisedb.com"><stark@enterprisedb.com></a> writes</pre><blockquotetype="cite"><pre wrap="">The two interfaces I'm aware of for this are posix_fadvise() and libaio. I've run tests with a synthetic benchmark which generates a large file then reads a random selection of blocks from within it using either synchronous reads like we do now or either of those interfaces. I saw impressive speed gains on a machine with only three drives in a raid array. I did this a while ago so I don't have the results handy. I'll rerun the tests again and post them. </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">Here's the results of running the synthetic test program on a 3-drive raid array. Note that the results *exceeded* the 3x speedup I expected, even for ordered blocks. Either the drive (or the OS) is capable of reordering the block requests better than the offset into the file would appear or some other effect is kicking in. The test is with an 8GB file, picking 8,192 random 8k blocks from within it. The pink diamonds represent the bandwidth obtained if the random blocks are sorted before fetching (like a bitmap indexscan) and the blue if they're unsorted. </pre></blockquote> I didn't see exceeded 3X in the graph. But I certainly see 2X+ for most of the graphic, and~3X for very small reads. Possibly, it is avoiding unnecessary read-ahead at the drive or OS levels? <br /><br /> I thinkwe expected to see raw reads significantly faster for the single process case. I thought your simulation was going toinvolve a tweak to PostgreSQL on a real query to see what overall effect it would have on typical queries and on specialqueries like Matthew's. Are you able to tweak the index scan and bitmap scan methods to do posfix_fadvise() beforerunning? Even if it doesn't do anything more intelligent such as you described in another post?<br /><br /> Cheers,<br/> mark<br /><br /><pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- Mark Mielke <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mark@mielke.cc"><mark@mielke.cc></a> </pre>
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: