Horton

Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ?

Tom Samplonius <tom@sdf.com>

View thread
From: Tom Samplonius <tom@sdf.com>
To: mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>
Cc: Hackers List <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2000-11-28T06:38:35Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, mlw wrote:

> 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.

  I think it is a pretty wild assumption to say that 32k is more efficient
than 8k.  Considering how blocks are used, 32k may be in fact quite a bit
slower than 8k blocks.


Tom