On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:37:07 +0000 Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 08:21 -0800, Mark Wong wrote: > > > I've been wondering if there might be anything to gain by having a > > separate block size for logging and data. I thought I might try > > defining DATA_BLCKSZ and LOG_BLCKSZ and see what kind of trouble I get > > myself into. > > > > I wasn't able to find any previous discussion but pehaps 'separate > > BLKSZ' were poor parameters to use. Any thoughts? > > I see your thinking.... presumably a performance tuning thought? Yeah. :) > Overall, the two things are fairly separate, apart from the fact that we > do currently log whole data blocks straight to the log. Usually just > one, but possibly 2 or three. So I have a feeling that things would > become less efficient if you did this, not more. I was hoping that in the case where 2 or more data blocks are written to the log that they could written once within a single larger log block. The log block size must be larger than the data block size, of course. Thanks, Mark ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
