Re: [HACKERS] 8K block limit

From: Peter T Mount <peter(at)taer(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Peter T Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk>, Ken Mort <kenmort(at)mort(dot)port(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 8K block limit
Date: 1999-02-17 15:45:58
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.04.9902171543110.19908-100000@taer.maidstone.gov.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:

> > On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Ken Mort wrote:
> >
> > > Already asked this in the other lists so here.
> > >
> > > I need to store some polygons that are larger than 8K.
> > > I was reading in hackers archives talk about a solution
> > > to the 8K limit. Was anything done? If so, what do I
> > > need to do to solve my problem?
> >
> > There is an option that can be set at compile time to set the block size
> > from 8k to something like 32 or 64K (not sure which).
>
> I think it is 32k. (tuple offset in a block is limited to 15 bits)
>
> > Note: Changing the block size may have a performance hit however.
>
> Why?

I think some file systems are more optimised for 8K blocks. I may be
thinking on the original reason for the 8k limit in the first place, but I
remember there was discussions about this when the block size was altered.

Peter

--
Peter Mount, IT Section
petermount(at)it(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk
Anything I write here are my own views, and cannot be taken as being the
official words of Maidstone Borough Council

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1999-02-17 16:57:50 Re: [HACKERS] 8K block limit
Previous Message Thomas G. Lockhart 1999-02-17 15:32:04 Re: [HACKERS] Is the int8_ops being implimented?