Re: Read/Write block sizes

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Steve Poe <spoe(at)sfnet(dot)cc>, Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Read/Write block sizes
Date: 2005-08-24 02:31:29
Message-ID: 200508231931.29682.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Steve,

> I would assume that dbt2 with STP helps minimize the amount of hours
> someone has to invest to determine performance gains with configurable
> options?

Actually, these I/O operation issues show up mainly with DW workloads, so the
STP isn't much use there. If I can ever get some of these machines back
from the build people, I'd like to start testing some stuff.

One issue with testing this is that currently PostgreSQL doesn't support block
sizes above 128K. We've already done testing on that (well, Mark has) and
the performance gains aren't even worth the hassle of remembering you're on a
different block size (like, +4%).

What the Sun people have done with other DB systems is show that substantial
performance gains are possible on large databases (>100G) using block sizes
of 1MB. I believe that's possible (and that it probably makes more of a
difference on Solaris than on BSD) but we can't test it without some hackery
first.

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeffrey W. Baker 2005-08-24 03:07:34 Re: Read/Write block sizes
Previous Message Jignesh K. Shah 2005-08-24 02:22:04 Re: Read/Write block sizes