Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You would still however get the advantage that you wouldn't have to copy the
> data from the disk buffers to user space, you simply get the disk buffer
> mapped into your address space.
AFAICS this would be the *only* advantage. While it's not
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 12:50:15AM +1000, Andrew Snow wrote:
> Yeah, fair enough. But mmap works well on the more popular platforms
> used for PostgreSQL. And it can't *hurt* performance, and its probably
Actually, it CAN hurt performance, even on some of the more popular
platforms.
> worth do
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 12:02:08AM +1000, Andrew Snow wrote:
>
> What I think would be better would be moving postgresql to a system of
> using memory-mapped I/O. instead of the shared buffer cache, files
> would be directly memory-mapped and the OS would do the caching. I
> can't see this happ
> It wouldn't be a very bad idea for systems where mmap is
> noticeably faster than read/write using syscalls.
> Unfortunately on some of those systems mmap is broken for
> multiple processes mapping the same file...:)
Yeah, fair enough. But mmap works well on the more popular platforms
used
While people are discussing mysql vs pg
I wonder if anyone of the two
support raw partition. If not
is it on the todo list?
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
