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
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 |