X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E9BE9DD596 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:02:42 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 70314-04 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:02:46 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C8D49DD571 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:02:39 -0400 (AST) 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 jB5F2c69029519; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 10:02:38 -0500 (EST) To: Olleg Samoylov cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: BLCKSZ In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Olleg Samoylov message dated "Mon, 05 Dec 2005 16:47:31 +0300" Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 10:02:38 -0500 Message-ID: <29518.1133794958@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.013 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013] X-Spam-Score: 0.013 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/124 X-Sequence-Number: 15945 Olleg Samoylov writes: > I try to test this. Linux, memory page 4kb, disk page 4kb. I set BLCKSZ > to 4kb. I get some performance improve, but not big, may be because I > have 4Gb on test server (amd64). It's highly unlikely that reducing BLCKSZ is a good idea. There are bad side-effects on the maximum index entry size, maximum number of tuple fields, etc. In any case, when you didn't say *what* you tested, it's impossible to judge the usefulness of the change. regards, tom lane