Re: cpu_tuple_cost

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: cpu_tuple_cost
Date: 2005-03-15 02:17:52
Message-ID: 200503150217.j2F2HqA01460@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
[ There is text before PGP section. ]
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> > Reducing random_page_cost is usually the best way to get the
> > planner to favor indexscans more.
>
> On that note, can I raise the idea again of dropping the default
> value for random_page_cost in postgresql.conf? I think 4 is too
> conservative in this day and age. Certainly the person who will
> be negatively impacted by a default drop of 4 to 3 will be the
> exception and not the rule.

Agreed. I think we should reduce it at least to 3.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-03-15 02:23:29 Re: cpu_tuple_cost
Previous Message Greg Sabino Mullane 2005-03-15 02:05:01 Re: cpu_tuple_cost