[HACKERS] block size

2007-05-24 Thread Guido Barosio
Chaps: I am currently after the block size being used by major rdbm's and how do they take advantage of it. (ie, postgresql does interacts basically in two ways, by WAL'ing, and by the update activity, block size 8192) While I am googling this, hints will be apreciated. Thanks in advance, -- G

Re: [HACKERS] Block size: 8K or 16K?

2002-04-26 Thread mlw
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Curt Sampson wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, mlw wrote: > > > > > ...but my gut tells me that using 16K blocks will increase performance > > > over 8K. Aleady I have seen a sequential scan of a large table go from 20 > > > seconds using 8K to 17.3 seconds using 16K. > > >

Re: [HACKERS] Block size: 8K or 16K?

2002-04-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Curt Sampson wrote: > On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, mlw wrote: > > > ...but my gut tells me that using 16K blocks will increase performance > > over 8K. Aleady I have seen a sequential scan of a large table go from 20 > > seconds using 8K to 17.3 seconds using 16K. > > You should be able to get the same

Re: [HACKERS] Block size: 8K or 16K?

2002-04-25 Thread Curt Sampson
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, mlw wrote: > ...but my gut tells me that using 16K blocks will increase performance > over 8K. Aleady I have seen a sequential scan of a large table go from 20 > seconds using 8K to 17.3 seconds using 16K. You should be able to get the same performance increase with 8K block

Re: [HACKERS] Block size: 8K or 16K?

2002-04-25 Thread Neil Conway
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:04:07 -0400 "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am going to compare a 16KB PostgreSQL system to an 8KB system. I am working > on the assumption that 16K takes about as long to read as 8K, and That the CPU > overhead of working with a 16K block is not too significant. > >

Re: [HACKERS] Block size: 8K or 16K?

2002-04-25 Thread mlw
Jean-Paul ARGUDO wrote: > > > I know with toast, block size is no longer an issue, but 8K is not a lot these > > days, and it seems like a lot of syscall and block management overhead could be > > reduced by doubling it. Any comments? > > IMHO, I think this would enhance performances only if tup

[HACKERS] Block size: 8K or 16K?

2002-04-25 Thread mlw
I am going to compare a 16KB PostgreSQL system to an 8KB system. I am working on the assumption that 16K takes about as long to read as 8K, and That the CPU overhead of working with a 16K block is not too significant. I know with toast, block size is no longer an issue, but 8K is not a lot these