| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Mark Wong <markw(at)osdl(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Separate BLCKSZ for data and logging |
| Date: | 2006-03-16 20:21:52 |
| Message-ID: | 19810.1142540512@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> 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.
I too think reducing the size of WAL blocks might be a win, because
we currently always write whole blocks, and so a series of small
transactions will be rewriting the same 8K block multiple times.
If the filesystem's native block size is less than 8K, matching that
size should theoretically make things faster.
Whether it makes enough difference to be worth the trouble is another
question ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Wong | 2006-03-16 20:22:58 | Re: Separate BLCKSZ for data and logging |
| Previous Message | Dann Corbit | 2006-03-16 20:19:03 | Re: qsort, once again |