| From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | sanyam jain <sanyamjain22(at)live(dot)in> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Setting BLCKSZ 4kB |
| Date: | 2018-01-17 13:10:10 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.20.1801171334080.11884@lancre |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello,
> What are the cons of setting BLCKSZ as 4kB? When saw the results
> published on [...].
There were other posts and publications which points to the same direction
consistently.
This matches my deep belief is that postgres default block size is a
reasonable compromise for HDD, but is less pertinent for SSD for most OLTP
loads.
For OLAP, I do not think it would lose much, but I have not tested it.
> Does turning off FPWs will be safe if BLCKSZ is set to 4kB given page
> size of file system is 4kB?
FPW = Full Page Write. I would not bet on turning off FPW, ISTM that SSDs
can have "page" sizes as low as 512 bytes, but are typically 2 kB or 4 kB,
and the information easily available anyway.
--
Fabien.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2018-01-17 13:47:24 | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2018-01-17 13:00:21 | Re: [HACKERS] Another oddity in handling of WCO constraints in postgres_fdw |