Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ?

I've been using a 32k BLCKSZ for months now without any trouble, though I've
not benchmarked it to see if it's any faster than one with a BLCKSZ of 8k..

-Mitch

> This is just a curiosity.
>
> Why is the default postgres block size 8192? These days, with caching
> file systems, high speed DMA disks, hundreds of megabytes of RAM, maybe
> even gigabytes. Surely, 8K is inefficient.
>
> Has anyone done any tests to see if a default 32K block would provide a
> better overall performance? 8K seems so small, and 32K looks to be where
> most x86 operating systems seem to have a sweet spot.
>
> If someone has the answer off the top of their head, and I'm just being
> stupid, let me have it. However, I have needed to up the block size to
> 32K for a text management system and have seen no  performance problems.
> (It has not been a scientific experiment, admittedly.)
>
> This isn't a rant, but my gut tells me that a 32k block size as default
> would be better, and that smaller deployments should adjust down as
> needed.
>