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 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
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..
-Mitch
> 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.
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | selkovjr | 2000-11-28 00:53:10 | Re: [HACKERS] Indexing for geographic objects? |
Previous Message | selkovjr | 2000-11-28 00:03:33 | Re: [HACKERS] Indexing for geographic objects? |