From: | "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Separate BLCKSZ for data and logging |
Date: | 2006-03-17 01:51:21 |
Message-ID: | dvd4ss$82m$1@news.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote
>
> I think Tom's right... the OS blocksize is smaller than BLCKSZ, so
> reducing the size might help with a very high transaction load when
> commits are required very frequently. At checkpoint it sounds like we
> might benefit from a large WAL blocksize because of all the additional
> blocks written, but we often write more than one block at a time anyway,
> and that still translates to multiple OS blocks whichever way you cut
> it, so I'm not convinced yet.
>
As I observed from other database system, they really did something like
this. You can see the disk write sequence is something like this:
512
512
2048
4196
32768
512
...
That is, the xlog write bytes will always align to the disk sector size
(required by O_DIRECT), and try to write out as much as possible (but within
a upper bound like 32768 I guess). As I understand, this change would not
take too much trouble, maybe a local change in XlogWrite() is enough.
Regards,
Qingqing
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-17 05:27:05 | Re: qsort, once again |
Previous Message | William ZHANG | 2006-03-17 01:33:03 | Re: Bug report form: locale/encoding |