| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Configuring BLCKSZ and XLOGSEGSZ (in 8.3) |
| Date: | 2006-11-27 21:47:57 |
| Message-ID: | 24656.1164664077@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> I don't doubt that there may be a positive effect from increasing the
> block size. But we haven't seen any analysis of why that might be.
It seems at least as likely that increased block size would *decrease*
performance by requiring even small writes to do more physical I/O.
This applies to both data files and xlog.
But the real issue here is whether there are grounds for supporting
run-time changes in the block size. AFAICS the evidence for supporting
even compile-time changes is pretty weak; why should we take the likely
complexity and performance costs of making it run-time changeable?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-11-27 22:04:22 | Re: Storing a dynahash for an entire connection or |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-11-27 21:30:38 | Re: [CORE] RC1 blocker issues |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joseph Shraibman | 2006-11-27 22:08:45 | doc patch for savepoints |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-11-27 21:08:10 | Re: Configuring BLCKSZ and XLOGSEGSZ (in 8.3) |