8192 BLCKSZ ?
От | mlw |
---|---|
Тема | 8192 BLCKSZ ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3A22EE24.2AE3F431@mohawksoft.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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 default would be better, and that smaller deployments should adjust down as needed.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: