Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Bruce Momjian
Тема Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ?
Дата
Msg-id 200011280139.UAA28530@candle.pha.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ?  ("Mitch Vincent" <mitch@venux.net>)
Ответы Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ?  (Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> 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

Larger block sizes mean larger blocks in the cache, therefore fewer
blocks per megabyte.  The more granular the cache, the better.

8k is the standard Unix file system disk transfer size.  Less than that
would be overhead of transfering more info that we actually retrieve
from the kernel.  Larger and the cache is less granular.

No transaction issues because we use fsync.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
 


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Mitch Vincent"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ?
Следующее
От: Nathan Myers
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ?