Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Tablespace-level Block Size Definitions

From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>
To: Dawid Kuroczko <qnex42(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Tablespace-level Block Size Definitions
Date: 2005-06-01 12:38:39
Message-ID: 1117629520.4772.25.camel@fuji.krosing.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On K, 2005-06-01 at 14:00 +0200, Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
> On 6/1/05, Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> wrote:
> > You could create a separate bufferpool per page size. Of course that
> > has other disadvantages.
> > 
> > Is it really so difficult to create and attach another shmem segment ?
> 
> Well, I don't think it is much different from having two database clusters,
> each with different block size.  Hmm, perhaps it could be possible to
> make them all available through one "virtual" DB host/port using
> pg_pool even. :)
> 
> It shouldn't be too difficult to create benchmarks testing performance
> of PostgreSQL under different block sizes, I guess.  I wonder what
> perfromance win is possible...

Perhaps it is simpler to just put different tablespaces on different
disks and then play with filesystem readahead settings at disk level.

It's not exactly the same thing, but may solve at least some problems.

-- 
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Marc G. FournierDate: 2005-06-01 12:39:18
Subject: Re: Deadlock with tsearch2 index ...
Previous:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2005-06-01 12:10:55
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group