Sean, can we get a copy of your test set? And any scripts that you have for running the tests?
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Early performance tests on my laptop suggest it's about 8% faster for > > writing when both the FS and PostgreSQL use 16K blocks. > > BTW, I don't really believe that one set of tests, conducted on one > single machine, are anywhere near enough justification for changing this > value. Especially not if it's a laptop rather than a typical server > configuration. You've got considerably less I/O bandwidth in proportion > to CPU horsepower than a server. Why is that an issue? Well, a larger > block size will substantially increase our WAL overhead (because we tend > to dump whole blocks into WAL at the slightest provocation) and on > slower machines the CRC64 calculations involved in WAL entries are a > significant cost. On a machine with less CPU and more disk horsepower > than you tested, the tradeoffs could be a lot different. > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
