From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Does larger i/o size make sense? |
Date: | 2013-08-23 09:11:06 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.02.1308231107040.3533@localhost6.localdomain6 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> Would it make sense to have something easier to configure that recompiling
>> postgresql and managing a custom executable, say a block size that could be
>> configured from initdb and/or postmaster.conf, or maybe per-object settings
>> specified at creation time?
>>
> I love the idea of per-object block size setting according to expected workload;
My 0.02€: wait to see whether the idea get some positive feedback by core
people before investing any time in that...
The per object would be a lot of work. A per initdb (so per cluster)
setting (block size, wal size...) would much easier to implement, but it
impacts for storage format.
> large tables, larger block size may have less pain than interruption per 8KB
> boundary to switch the block being currently focused on, even though random
> access via index scan loves smaller block size.
Yep, as Tom noted, this is really workload specific.
--
Fabien.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-08-23 11:42:44 | Re: PL/pgSQL, RAISE and error context |
Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2013-08-23 08:36:28 | Re: PL/pgSQL, RAISE and error context |