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

From Fabien COELHO
Subject Re: Does larger i/o size make sense?
Date
Msg-id alpine.DEB.2.02.1308230829390.3533@localhost6.localdomain6
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Does larger i/o size make sense?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Does larger i/o size make sense?  (Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
> The big-picture problem with work in this area is that no matter how you
> do it, any benefit is likely to be both platform- and workload-specific.
> So the prospects for getting a patch accepted aren't all that bright.

Indeed.

Would it make sense to have something easier to configure that recompiling 
postgresql and managing a custom executable, say a block size that could 
be configured from initdb and/or postmaster.conf, or maybe per-object 
settings specified at creation time?

Note that the block size may also affect the cache behavior, for instance 
for pure random accesses, more "recently accessed" tuples can be kept in 
memory if the pages are smaller. So there are other reasons to play with 
the blocksize than I/O access times, and an option to do that more easily 
would help.

-- 
Fabien.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kohei KaiGai
Date:
Subject: Re: Does larger i/o size make sense?
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: PL/pgSQL, RAISE and error context