Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ?
От | Mitch Vincent |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 018901c058e4$66588940$0200000a@windows обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RE: 8192 BLCKSZ ? ("Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>) |
Ответы |
Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
If it breaks anything in PostgreSQL I sure haven't seen any evidence -- the box this database is running on gets hit pretty hard and I haven't had a single ounce of trouble since I went to 7.0.X -Mitch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> To: "Hackers List" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 5:14 PM Subject: RE: [HACKERS] 8192 BLCKSZ ? > I don't believe it's a performance issue, I believe it's that writes to > blocks greater than 8k cannot be guaranteed 'atomic' by the operating > system. Hence, 32k blocks would break the transactions system. (Or > something like that - am I correct?) > > Chris > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org > > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Mitch Vincent > > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 8:40 AM > > To: mlw; Hackers List > > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 8192 BLCKSZ ? > > > > > > I've been using a 32k BLCKSZ for months now without any trouble, > > though I've > > not benchmarked it to see if it's any faster than one with a > > BLCKSZ of 8k.. > > > > -Mitch > > > > > This is just a curiosity. > > > > > > Why is the default postgres block size 8192? These days, with caching > > > file systems, high speed DMA disks, hundreds of megabytes of RAM, maybe > > > even gigabytes. Surely, 8K is inefficient. > > > > > > Has anyone done any tests to see if a default 32K block would provide a > > > better overall performance? 8K seems so small, and 32K looks to be where > > > most x86 operating systems seem to have a sweet spot. > > > > > > If someone has the answer off the top of their head, and I'm just being > > > stupid, let me have it. However, I have needed to up the block size to > > > 32K for a text management system and have seen no performance problems. > > > (It has not been a scientific experiment, admittedly.) > > > > > > This isn't a rant, but my gut tells me that a 32k block size as defaul t > > > would be better, and that smaller deployments should adjust down as > > > needed. > > > > > > >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: