Re: Does larger i/o size make sense?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Greg Smith
Тема Re: Does larger i/o size make sense?
Дата
Msg-id 521D1440.5060605@2ndQuadrant.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Does larger i/o size make sense?  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 8/27/13 3:54 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> I believe that Greenplum currently uses 128K.  There's a definite
> benefit for the DW use-case.

Since Linux read-ahead can easily give big gains on fast storage, I 
normally set that to at least 4096 sectors = 2048KB.  That's a lot 
bigger than even this, and definitely necessary for reaching maximum 
storage speed.

I don't think that the block size change alone will necessarily 
duplicate the gains on seq scans that Greenplum gets though.  They've 
done a lot more performance optimization on that part of the read path 
than just the larger block size.

As far as quantifying whether this is worth chasing, the most useful 
thing to do here is find some fast storage and profile the code with 
different block sizes at a large read-ahead.  I wouldn't spend a minute 
on trying to come up with a more complicated management scheme until the 
potential gain is measured.

-- 
Greg Smith   2ndQuadrant US    greg@2ndQuadrant.com   Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Kevin Grittner
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Behaviour of take over the synchronous replication
Следующее
От: Greg Smith
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [v9.4] row level security