Re: pgcon unconference / impact of block size on performance

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Subject: Re: pgcon unconference / impact of block size on performance
Date: 2022-06-07 16:26:01
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoa8WXoiQrgx0ovxR4iwtKAcfj-WfWaHSez4L1nRR7fcAQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jun 4, 2022 at 7:23 PM Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> This opened a long discussion about possible explanations - I claimed
> one of the main factors is the adoption of flash storage, due to pretty
> fundamental differences between HDD and SSD systems. But the discussion
> concluded with an agreement to continue investigating this, so here's an
> attempt to support the claim with some measurements/data.

Interesting. I wonder if the fact that x86 machines have a 4kB page
size matters here. It seems hard to be sure because it's not something
you can really change. But there are a few of your graphs where 4kB
spikes up above any higher or lower value, and maybe that's why?

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2022-06-07 17:02:23 Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?
Previous Message Julien Rouhaud 2022-06-07 15:47:44 Re: Add header support to text format and matching feature