Re: parametric block size?
От | Fabien COELHO |
---|---|
Тема | Re: parametric block size? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | alpine.DEB.2.10.1407291325180.12870@sto обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: parametric block size? (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Andres, > But further benchmarks sound like a good idea. I've started running some benchmarks with pgbench, with varying block & WAL block sizes. I've done a blog post on a small subset of results, focussing on block size with SSDs and to validate the significance of the figures found, see for more details: http://blog.coelho.net/database/2014/08/08/postgresql-page-size-for-SSD/ I've also found an old post by Tomas Vondra who did really extensive tests, including playing around with file system options: http://www.fuzzy.cz/en/articles/ssd-benchmark-results-read-write-pgbench/ The cumulated and consistent result of all these tests, including Hans-Jürgen Schönig short tests, is that reducing page size on SSDs increases significantly pgbench reported performance, by about 10%. I've also done some tests with HDDs which are quite disappointing, with PostgreSQL running in batch mode: a few seconds at 1000 tps followed by a catch-up phase of 20 seconds at about 0 (zero) tps, and back to a new cycle. I'm not sure of which parameter to tweak (postgresql configuration, linux io scheduler, ext4 options or possibly stay away from ext4) to get something more stable. -- Fabien.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: