Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Samplonius
Subject Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ?
Date
Msg-id Pine.BSF.4.05.10011272234360.27922-100000@misery.sdf.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to 8192 BLCKSZ ?  (mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, mlw wrote:

> 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.
 I think it is a pretty wild assumption to say that 32k is more efficient
than 8k.  Considering how blocks are used, 32k may be in fact quite a bit
slower than 8k blocks.


Tom



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Example Database Script
Next
From: Thomas Lockhart
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: FWD: tinterval vs interval on pgsql-novice