From: | Satoshi Nagayasu <snaga(at)uptime(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | 赖文豫 <xiaolai913(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: By now, why PostgreSQL 9.2 don't support SSDs? |
Date: | 2013-03-30 17:12:59 |
Message-ID: | 51571D1B.6030200@uptime.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2013/03/30 23:31, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 10:08:44PM +0800, 赖文豫 wrote:
>> As we know, SSDs are widely used in various kinds of applications. But the SMGR
>> in PostgreSQL still only
>> support magnetic disk. How do we make full use of SSDs to improve the
>> performance of PostgreSQL?
>
> When the storage manager (SMGR) says magnetic disk, it is talking about
> read/write media with random access capabillity, vs. something like
> write-only media, which was originally supported in the code. Postgres
> works just fine with SSDs; the only adjustment you might want to make
> is to reduce random_page_cost.
BTW, using the larger block size (>64kB) would improve performance
when using SSD drive?
I found that configure script supports --with-blocksize option to
change the block size up to 32kB. (and the configure script does
not support >64kb block size so far.)
But I heard that larger block size, like 256kB, would take
advantage of the SSD performance because of the block management
within SSD.
So, I'm just curious to know that.
Regards,
--
Satoshi Nagayasu <snaga(at)uptime(dot)jp>
Uptime Technologies, LLC. http://www.uptime.jp
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-03-30 18:20:06 | HS and clog |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-03-30 17:01:34 | Re: Fix for pg_upgrade and invalid indexes |