| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Does larger i/o size make sense? |
| Date: | 2013-08-27 19:46:39 |
| Message-ID: | 1377632799.24894.YahooMailNeo@web162901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> Another point here is that you could get some of the hoped-for
> benefit just by increasing BLCKSZ ... but nobody's ever
> demonstrated any compelling benefit from larger BLCKSZ (except on
> specialized workloads, if memory serves).
I think I've seen a handful of reports of performance differences
with different BLCKSZ builds (perhaps not all on community lists).
My recollection is that some people sifting through data in data
warehouse environments see a performance benefit up to 32KB, but
that tests of GiST index performance with different sizes showed
better performance with smaller sizes down to around 2KB.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-08-27 19:54:50 | Re: Does larger i/o size make sense? |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2013-08-27 19:36:40 | Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE |