Re: Has anybody think about changing BLCKSZ to an option of initdb?

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Jacky Leng <lengjianquan(at)163(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Has anybody think about changing BLCKSZ to an option of initdb?
Date: 2009-03-14 20:27:03
Message-ID: 20090314202703.GB5624@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus wrote:

> However, at Greenplum I remember determining that larger PG block sizes,
> if matched with larger filesystem block sizes did significantly help on
> performance of data warehouses which do a lot of seq scans -- but that
> our ceiling of 32K was still too small to really make this work. I
> don't have the figures for that, though; Luke reading this?

And did they study the effect of tuning the kernel's readahead?

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Gierth 2009-03-14 20:49:52 hstore patch, part 1
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-03-14 20:04:36 Re: Should SET ROLE inherit config params?