Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ?

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Mitch Vincent <mitch(at)venux(dot)net>
Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ?
Date: 2000-11-28 01:39:51
Message-ID: 200011280139.UAA28530@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> If it breaks anything in PostgreSQL I sure haven't seen any evidence -- the
> box this database is running on gets hit pretty hard and I haven't had a
> single ounce of trouble since I went to 7.0.X

Larger block sizes mean larger blocks in the cache, therefore fewer
blocks per megabyte. The more granular the cache, the better.

8k is the standard Unix file system disk transfer size. Less than that
would be overhead of transfering more info that we actually retrieve
from the kernel. Larger and the cache is less granular.

No transaction issues because we use fsync.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Myers 2000-11-28 01:49:46 Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ?
Previous Message Lamar Owen 2000-11-28 01:21:55 Re: full text indexing