Bruce Momjian wrote: > Now, with larger RAM and disk sizes, it may be time to consider larger > page sizes, like 32k pages. That reduces the granularity of the cache, > but it may have other performance advantages that would be worth it. > > What people are actually suggesting with the read-ahead for sequential > scans is basically a larger block size for sequential scans than for > index scans. While this makes sense, it may be better to just increase > the block size overall.
I have seen performance improvements by using 16K blocks over 8K blocks in sequential scans of large tables. I am investigating the performance difference between 16K and 8K block sizes on one of my systems. I'll let you know what I see. I am using pgbench for generic performance levels. If you would like to see any extra data, just let me know. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
