Re: parametric block size?

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Fabien <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: parametric block size?
Date: 2014-07-26 09:05:39
Message-ID: 20140726090539.GE17793@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2014-07-22 10:22:53 +0200, Fabien wrote:
> The default blocksize is currently 8k, which is not necessary optimal for
> all setup, especially with SSDs where the latency is much lower than HDD.

I don't think that really follows.

> There is a case for different values with significant impact on performance
> (up to a not-to-be-sneezed-at 10% on a pgbench run on SSD, see
> http://www.cybertec.at/postgresql-block-sizes-getting-started/), and ISTM
> that the ability to align PostgreSQL block size to the underlying FS/HW
> block size would be nice.

I don't think that benchmark is very meaningful. Way too small scale,
way to short runtime (there'll be barely any checkpoints, hot pruning,
vacuum at all).

> More advanced features, but with much more impact on the code, would be to
> be able to change the size at database/table level.

That'd be pretty horrible because the size of pages in shared_buffers
wouldn't be uniform anymore.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2014-07-26 09:11:46 get_loop_count() fails to ignore RELOPT_DEADREL rels
Previous Message Fabien COELHO 2014-07-26 08:44:25 BUG - broken "make check" if different options