Re: Read/Write block sizes - Mailing list pgsql-performance

On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 06:09:09PM -0400, Chris Browne wrote:
> J.K.Shah@Sun.COM (Jignesh Shah) writes:
> >> Does that include increasing the size of read/write blocks? I've
> >> noticedthat with a large enough table it takes a while to do a
> >> sequential scan, even if it's cached; I wonder if the fact that it
> >> takes a million read(2) calls to get through an 8G table is part of
> >> that.
> >
> > Actually some of that readaheads,etc the OS does already if it does
> > some sort of throttling/clubbing of reads/writes. But its not enough
> > for such types of workloads.
> >
> > Here is what I think will help:
> >
> > * Support for different Blocksize TABLESPACE without recompiling the
> > code.. (Atlease support for a different Blocksize for the whole
> > database without recompiling the code)
> >
> > * Support for bigger sizes of WAL files instead of 16MB files
> > WITHOUT recompiling the code.. Should be a tuneable if you ask me
> > (with checkpoint_segments at 256.. you have too many 16MB files in
> > the log directory) (This will help OLTP benchmarks more since now
> > they don't spend time rotating log files)
> >
> > * Introduce a multiblock or extent tunable variable where you can
> > define a multiple of 8K (or BlockSize tuneable) to read a bigger
> > chunk and store it in the bufferpool.. (Maybe writes too) (Most
> > devices now support upto 1MB chunks for reads and writes)
> >
> > *There should be a way to preallocate files for TABLES in
> > TABLESPACES otherwise with multiple table writes in the same
> > filesystem ends with fragmented files which causes poor "READS" from
> > the files.
> >
> > * With 64bit 1GB file chunks is also moot.. Maybe it should be
> > tuneable too like 100GB without recompiling the code.
> >
> > Why recompiling is bad? Most companies that will support Postgres
> > will support their own binaries and they won't prefer different
> > versions of binaries for different blocksizes, different WAL file
> > sizes, etc... and hence more function using the same set of binaries
> > is more desirable in enterprise environments
>
> Every single one of these still begs the question of whether the
> changes will have a *material* impact on performance.

How many of these things are currently easy to change with a recompile?
I should be able to start testing some of these ideas in the near
future, if they only require minor code or configure changes.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software        http://pervasive.com        512-569-9461