Re: Does larger i/o size make sense?

From: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
To: Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Does larger i/o size make sense?
Date: 2013-08-23 09:11:06
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.02.1308231107040.3533@localhost6.localdomain6
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


>> Would it make sense to have something easier to configure that recompiling
>> postgresql and managing a custom executable, say a block size that could be
>> configured from initdb and/or postmaster.conf, or maybe per-object settings
>> specified at creation time?
>>
> I love the idea of per-object block size setting according to expected workload;

My 0.02€: wait to see whether the idea get some positive feedback by core
people before investing any time in that...

The per object would be a lot of work. A per initdb (so per cluster)
setting (block size, wal size...) would much easier to implement, but it
impacts for storage format.

> large tables, larger block size may have less pain than interruption per 8KB
> boundary to switch the block being currently focused on, even though random
> access via index scan loves smaller block size.

Yep, as Tom noted, this is really workload specific.

--
Fabien.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2013-08-23 11:42:44 Re: PL/pgSQL, RAISE and error context
Previous Message Marko Tiikkaja 2013-08-23 08:36:28 Re: PL/pgSQL, RAISE and error context