Re: 7.2.1 optimises very badly against 7.2

From: Mark kirkwood <markir(at)slingshot(dot)co(dot)nz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Sam Liddicott <sam(dot)liddicott(at)ananova(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 7.2.1 optimises very badly against 7.2
Date: 2002-07-13 03:53:56
Message-ID: 1026532438.1297.25.camel@spikey.slithery.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Tom Lane wrote (snipped)
>There have been a couple of rounds of
>pgsql-hackers discussion about whether to lower the default value of
>random_page_cost, but so far no one has done any experiments that
>would be needed to establish a good new value. (The current default
>of 4.0 is based on some old experiments I did

4.0 seems like a pretty reasonable default setting.

I had the opportunity to measure approximate random_page_cost for a
number of configurations recently whilst doing some file system
benchmarking:

Rough Config Random_page_cost
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sun E220 Solaris 8 SAN RAID 5 6
Cyclone Linux,3Ware 7850 4xATA-133 RAID 5 40
Cyclone Linux 1xATA 133 10

Given the wide variation obtainable ... I cant see any reason to move
away from 4.0.

regards

Mark

P.s : I used these to do the measurements -

http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~markir/tar/benchtool/benchtools-0.9.1.tar.gz

and if anyone knows how to enable largefile support on Linux in a
cleaner way than I did, feel free to let me know !

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alex Rice 2002-07-13 04:31:55 Objective-C wrappers for LibPq?
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2002-07-13 02:46:49 Re: I am being interviewed by OReilly