From: | "Denis Lussier" <denisl(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Milen Kulev" <makulev(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: XFS filessystem for Datawarehousing -2 |
Date: | 2006-08-03 05:36:10 |
Message-ID: | 5f820f750608022236yd8dd6escce3bb849b91bddb@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
I was kinda thinking that making the Block Size configurable at InitDB time
would be a nice & simple enhancement for PG 8.3. My own personal rule of
thumb for sizing is 8k for OLTP, 16k for mixed use, & 32k for DWH.
I have no personal experience with XFS, but, I've seen numerous internal
edb-postgres test results that show that of all file systems... OCFS
2.0seems to be quite good for PG update intensive apps (especially on
64 bit
machines).
On 8/1/06, Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Milen,
>
> On 8/1/06 3:19 PM, "Milen Kulev" <makulev(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, forgot to ask:
> > What is the recommended/best PG block size for DWH database? 16k,
> 32k, 64k
> > ?
> > What hsould be the relation between XFS/RAID stripe size and PG block
> size ?
>
> We have found that the page size in PG starts to matter only at very high
> disk performance levels around 1000MB/s. Other posters have talked about
> maintenance tasks improving in performance, but I haven't seen it.
>
> - Luke
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Koth, Christian (DWBI) | 2006-08-03 07:10:39 | Re: XFS filessystem for Datawarehousing |
Previous Message | Denis Lussier | 2006-08-03 05:21:56 | Re: PITR performance overhead? |