| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Wong <markw(at)osdl(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Separate BLCKSZ for data and logging |
| Date: | 2006-03-16 19:37:07 |
| Message-ID: | 1142537827.3859.505.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 08:21 -0800, Mark Wong wrote:
> I've been wondering if there might be anything to gain by having a
> separate block size for logging and data. I thought I might try
> defining DATA_BLCKSZ and LOG_BLCKSZ and see what kind of trouble I get
> myself into.
>
> I wasn't able to find any previous discussion but pehaps 'separate
> BLKSZ' were poor parameters to use. Any thoughts?
I see your thinking.... presumably a performance tuning thought?
Overall, the two things are fairly separate, apart from the fact that we
do currently log whole data blocks straight to the log. Usually just
one, but possibly 2 or three. So I have a feeling that things would
become less efficient if you did this, not more.
But its a good line of thought and I'll have a look at that.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-16 19:37:55 | qsort, once again |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-03-16 19:28:18 | Re: BETWEEN optimizer problems with single-value |