Is 4096 bytes a large enough page size? Apparently the disk drive industry has shifted from 512 byte sectors to 4096 byte sectors. http://tilt.lib.tsinghua.edu.cn/docs/tech/tp613_transition_to_4k_sectors.pdf
Should SQLite maintain a 1:1 ratio between page size and sector size? or should the page size be a multiple of the sector size? Say 2:1 (8096 or 8K)? or 4:1 (16K). What sizes do other databases use? (SQL Server and Postgres both use 8096 default) For years, virtual machines (VM) have used 4K pages (I think this started with IBM VM/370); while disk drives had 512 byte sectors (an 8:1 ratio). With a 2:1 ratio, in terms of seek time, one gets the second page for free. Would 8096 bytes (8K) be too much for a multi-tasking embedded device (such as a smart phone?). Are there any benchmarks? Jim On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Richard Hipp <drh at sqlite.org> wrote: > The tip of trunk (3.12.0 alpha) changes the default page size for new > database file from 1024 to 4096 bytes. > > https://www.sqlite.org/draft/releaselog/3_12_0.html > https://www.sqlite.org/draft/pgszchng2016.html > > This seems like a potentially disruptive change, so I want to give > you, the user community, plenty of time to consider the consequences > and potentially talk me out of it. > > The "Pre-release Snapshot" on the download page > (https://www.sqlite.org/download.html) contains this change, if you > want to actually evaluate the latest changes in your application. > > We hope to release 3.12.0 in early April, or maybe even sooner, so if > you want to provide feedback, you should do so without unnecessary > delay. > -- > D. Richard Hipp > drh at sqlite.org > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users >
