From: | "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | stange(at)rentec(dot)com |
Cc: | "Postgresql Performance" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( |
Date: | 2005-11-24 01:50:57 |
Message-ID: | BFAA5C81.145DB%llonergan@greenplum.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Alan,
On 11/23/05 2:00 PM, "Alan Stange" <stange(at)rentec(dot)com> wrote:
> Luke Lonergan wrote:
>> Why not contribute something - put up proof of your stated 8KB versus
>> 32KB page size improvement.
>
> I did observe that 32KB block sizes were a significant win "for our
> usage patterns". It might be a win for any of the following reasons:
> (* big snip *)
Though all of what you relate is interesting, it seems irrelevant to your
earlier statement here:
>> Alan Stange <stange(at)rentec(dot)com> writes:
>> If your goal is sequential IO, then one must use larger block sizes.
>> No one would use 8KB IO for achieving high sequential IO rates. Simply
>> put, read() is about the slowest way to get 8KB of data. Switching
>> to 32KB blocks reduces all the system call overhead by a large margin.
>> Larger blocks would be better still, up to the stripe size of your
>> mirror. (Of course, you're using a mirror and not raid5 if you care
>> about performance.)
And I am interested in seeing if your statement is correct. Do you have any
proof of this to share?
- Luke
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Luke Lonergan | 2005-11-24 02:29:49 | Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( |
Previous Message | Pailloncy Jean-Gerard | 2005-11-23 22:14:47 | 8.1 count(*) distinct: IndexScan/SeqScan |