| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com>, Dan Harris <fbsd(at)drivefaster(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Feature Request --- was: PostgreSQL Performance Tuning |
| Date: | 2007-04-27 19:11:11 |
| Message-ID: | 200704271211.12439.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
Bill,
> The only one that seems practical (to me) is random_page_cost. The
> others are all configuration options that I (as a DBA) want to be able
> to decide for myself.
Actually, random_page_cost *should* be a constant "4.0" or "3.5", which
represents the approximate ratio of seek/scan speed which has been
relatively constant across 6 years of HDD technology. The only reason we
make it a configuration variable is that there's defects in our cost model
which cause users to want to tinker with it.
Mind you, that's gotten better in recent versions as well. Lately I mostly
tinker with effective_cache_size and the various cpu_* stats rather than
modifying random_page_cost.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-04-27 19:18:20 | Re: postgres.exe - Entry point not found (PostgreSQL 8.3 devel) |
| Previous Message | Chris Browne | 2007-04-27 19:01:37 | Re: Processing a work queue |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dan Harris | 2007-04-27 20:27:51 | Re: Feature Request --- was: PostgreSQL Performance Tuning |
| Previous Message | Ray Stell | 2007-04-27 18:52:25 | Re: Feature Request --- was: PostgreSQL Performance Tuning |