On Mon, 2006-06-19 at 21:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Come to think of it I wonder whether there's anything to be gained by using > > smaller files for tables. Instead of 1G files maybe 256M files or something > > like that to reduce the hit of fsyncing a file.
> sync_file_range() is not that exactly, but since it lets you request > syncing and then go back and wait for the syncs later, we could get the > desired effect with two passes over the file list. (If the file list > is longer than our allowed number of open files, though, the extra > opens/closes could hurt.) So we would use the async properties of sync, but not the file range support? Sounds like it could help with multiple filesystems. > Indeed, I've been wondering lately if we shouldn't resurrect > LET_OS_MANAGE_FILESIZE and make that the default on systems with > largefile support. If nothing else it would cut down on open/close > overhead on very large relations. Agreed. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
