| From: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Testing Sandforce SSD |
| Date: | 2010-08-03 00:07:43 |
| Message-ID: | 4C575DCF.3050700@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Josh Berkus wrote:
> That doesn't make much sense unless there's some special advantage to a
> 4K blocksize with the hardware itself.
Given that pgbench is always doing tiny updates to blocks, I wouldn't be
surprised if switching to smaller blocks helps it in a lot of situations
if one went looking for them. Also, as you point out, pgbench runtime
varies around wildly enough that 10% would need more investigation to
really prove that means something. But I think Yeb has done plenty of
investigation into the most interesting part here, the durability claims.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.us
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-08-03 00:12:41 | Re: Testing Sandforce SSD |
| Previous Message | Maciek Sakrejda | 2010-08-02 22:37:21 | Re: Optimizing NOT IN plans / verify rewrite |