On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: >> And I don't see that as being warranted at this point. But further >> benchmarks sound like a good idea. > > Yep. A 10% potential performance impact looks worth the investigation.
I wonder, though, whether this isn't using a crowbar where some finer instrument is called for. If, for example, bigger heap blocks give better performance because a bigger I/O size just plain works better, well then that's interesting in its own right. But if a bigger or smaller block size yields better results on index scans, the right solution might be to change the internal page structure used by that index. For example, I remember reading a paper a few years back where the authors found that large page sizes were inefficient because you had to do a linear scan of all the items on the page; so they added some kind of btree-like structure within the page and got great results. So the page size itself wasn't the fundamental issue; it had more to do with what kind of page layout made sense at one page size vs. another page size. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers