Re: Does larger i/o size make sense? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Greg Smith
Subject Re: Does larger i/o size make sense?
Date
Msg-id 521D1440.5060605@2ndQuadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Does larger i/o size make sense?  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
List 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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kevin Grittner
Date:
Subject: Re: Behaviour of take over the synchronous replication
Next
From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: [v9.4] row level security