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

Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ?

From: Tom Samplonius <tom(at)sdf(dot)com>
To: mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>
Cc: Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ?
Date: 2000-11-28 06:38:35
Message-ID: Pine.BSF.4.05.10011272234360.27922-100000@misery.sdf.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, mlw wrote:

> This is just a curiosity.
> 
> Why is the default postgres block size 8192? These days, with caching
> file systems, high speed DMA disks, hundreds of megabytes of RAM, maybe
> even gigabytes. Surely, 8K is inefficient.

  I think it is a pretty wild assumption to say that 32k is more efficient
than 8k.  Considering how blocks are used, 32k may be in fact quite a bit
slower than 8k blocks.


Tom


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Philip WarnerDate: 2000-11-28 06:47:17
Subject: Re: Example Database Script
Previous:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2000-11-28 06:29:49
Subject: Re: Full text Indexing -out of contrib and into main..

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