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

Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ?

From: "Mitch Vincent" <mitch(at)venux(dot)net>
To: "mlw" <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, "Hackers List" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ?
Date: 2000-11-28 00:39:49
Message-ID: 012a01c058d3$b777cf40$0200000a@windows (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
I've been using a 32k BLCKSZ for months now without any trouble, though I've
not benchmarked it to see if it's any faster than one with a BLCKSZ of 8k..


> 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.
> Has anyone done any tests to see if a default 32K block would provide a
> better overall performance? 8K seems so small, and 32K looks to be where
> most x86 operating systems seem to have a sweet spot.
> If someone has the answer off the top of their head, and I'm just being
> stupid, let me have it. However, I have needed to up the block size to
> 32K for a text management system and have seen no  performance problems.
> (It has not been a scientific experiment, admittedly.)
> This isn't a rant, but my gut tells me that a 32k block size as default
> would be better, and that smaller deployments should adjust down as
> needed.

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: selkovjrDate: 2000-11-28 00:53:10
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Indexing for geographic objects?
Previous:From: selkovjrDate: 2000-11-28 00:03:33
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Indexing for geographic objects?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group