Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
So has anyone here done any experiments with live systems with different
block
sizes? What were your experiences?
I tested with 4k once. The system tanked. This might be a good one for
the performance lab.
I'm using 16k blocks for one
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 01:29:43PM +, Greg Stark wrote:
The main advantage would be for circumstances such as the Windows
installer where users are installing precompiled binaries. They don't
get an opportunity to choose the block size at all. (Similarly for
users of binary-only commercial
On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 13:53 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 01:29:43PM +, Greg Stark wrote:
The main advantage would be for circumstances such as the Windows
installer where users are installing precompiled binaries. They don't
get an opportunity to choose
Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com writes:
On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 13:53 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 01:29:43PM +, Greg Stark wrote:
The main advantage would be for circumstances such as the Windows
installer where users are installing precompiled
On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 15:29 +, Gregory Stark wrote:
Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com writes:
I think that is an understatement. I would say 99% of postgresql users
do NOT compile from source. Heck the only time I compile from source is
when I need to fix mis-configured defaults
Gregory Stark st...@enterprisedb.com writes:
So has anyone here done any experiments with live systems with different block
sizes? What were your experiences?
That should really have been the *first* question. We are not going to
make this a tunable unless there is some pretty strong evidence
On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 11:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Gregory Stark st...@enterprisedb.com writes:
So has anyone here done any experiments with live systems with different
block
sizes? What were your experiences?
That should really have been the *first* question. We are not going to
Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com writes:
On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 11:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
... Aside from the implementation costs of making
it variable, there is the oft repeated refrain that Postgres has too
many configuration knobs already.
Well that too many knobs argument doesn't
Tom Lane wrote:
Gregory Stark st...@enterprisedb.com writes:
So has anyone here done any experiments with live systems with different block
sizes? What were your experiences?
Mark tested this back in the OSDL days. His findings on DBT2 was that
the right *combination* of OS and PG
Josh Berkus wrote:
However, at Greenplum I remember determining that larger PG block sizes,
if matched with larger filesystem block sizes did significantly help on
performance of data warehouses which do a lot of seq scans -- but that
our ceiling of 32K was still too small to really
On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 12:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com writes:
On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 11:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
... Aside from the implementation costs of making
it variable, there is the oft repeated refrain that Postgres has too
many configuration
After all, re-initdb is much easier than re-build the whole package.
And there seems nothing diffcult to implement this. Is that true?
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Jacky Leng lengjianq...@163.com writes:
And there seems nothing diffcult to implement this. Is that true?
No.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
And there seems nothing diffcult to implement this. Is that true?
No.
Eh? There's nothing difficult in implementing it.
But there are a lot of other constants dependant on this value which
are currently compile-time
Greg Stark st...@enterprisedb.com writes:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
And there seems nothing diffcult to implement this. Is that true?
No.
Eh? There's nothing difficult in implementing it.
But there are a lot of other constants dependant on this
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Greg Stark st...@enterprisedb.com writes:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
And there seems nothing diffcult to implement this. Is that true?
No.
Eh? There's nothing difficult in
16 matches
Mail list logo
