X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7963D7319 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:10:30 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 33871-08 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 05:10:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8EDAD731E for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:10:27 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j7O5AKam021416; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:10:20 -0400 (EDT) To: "Jeffrey W. Baker" Cc: Josh Berkus , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, Steve Poe , Chris Browne Subject: Re: Read/Write block sizes In-reply-to: <1124852854.11147.5.camel@noodles> References: <60k6icpapm.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com> <1124846743.12045.94.camel@amd64-laptop-spoe> <200508231931.29682.josh@agliodbs.com> <1124852854.11147.5.camel@noodles> Comments: In-reply-to "Jeffrey W. Baker" message dated "Tue, 23 Aug 2005 20:07:34 -0700" Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:10:20 -0400 Message-ID: <21415.1124860220@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200508/373 X-Sequence-Number: 14120 "Jeffrey W. Baker" writes: > To get decent I/O you need 1MB fundamental units all the way down the > stack. It would also be a good idea to have an application that isn't likely to change a single bit in a 1MB range and then expect you to record that change. This pretty much lets Postgres out of the picture. regards, tom lane