Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I would also question the 64KB at a time. Why not a 1024KB (arbitrary)
at a time? Is it a resource issue? In the old days when we actually
had people trying to run postgresql on 128 and 256 megs of ram, o.k.
but now?
It would be simple enough to change. Try it and see if it actually makes
a difference. All you have to change is the define of RAW_BUF_SIZE.
Seems unlikely that making it bigger than (a fraction of) L2 cache
would be a smart move.
O.k. these CPUs have 1meg of L2 so I will try with 512k.
Joshua D. Drake
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
