From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Yohanes Santoso <pgsql-hackers(at)microjet(dot)ath(dot)cx> |
Subject: | Re: determining random_page_cost value |
Date: | 2005-10-25 18:08:08 |
Message-ID: | 200510251108.09043.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Yohanes,
> Yesterday in #pgsql, I was talking with neilc about determining rpc
> value in a more concrete way. So I created a program that compares
> exhaustive (all blocks are eventually read) random reads with
> sequential reads. The full source is attached.
Thanks for code.
> I tested the db files residing on a software RAID-1 composed of 2 IDE
> 7200rpm drives on linux 2.6.12.
FWIW, most performance-conscious users will be using a SCSI RAID array.
> is not precise enough. Which pages? Those that belong to the dbase
> file or sequential pages on the media?
Well, it's actually calculating the cost ratio of pulling non-sequential
random *rows* from the db files against pulling sequential blocks.
> On dbases smaller (calculated from du <dbase_dir>)than 500M, I got a
> ratio (random over sequential time) of 4.5:1. A 3.0GB dbase has a
> ratio of 10:1. On a 3GB contiguous file, the ratio is about 4:1.
All of this goes to uphold Tom's general assertion that the default of 4 is
more or less correct but the calculation in which we're using that number is
not.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Treat | 2005-10-25 18:27:50 | expanded \df+ display broken in beta4 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-25 17:28:00 | Re: BUG #1993: Adding/subtracting negative time intervals |