Re: Bitmap Heap scan 8.1/8.2

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Martin Marques <martin(at)bugs(dot)unl(dot)edu(dot)ar>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bitmap Heap scan 8.1/8.2
Date: 2007-10-23 12:54:57
Message-ID: 20071023125456.GC5772@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Martin Marques escribió:
> Martin Marques escribió:
>> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>>
>>> try
>>>
>>> set work_mem to '8MB';
>>> and
>>> explain analyze select ..
>> These things didn't help. What changed the plan completely was this:
>> seq_page_cost = 5.0 # measured on an arbitrary scale
>> cpu_tuple_cost = 0.05 # same scale as above
>
> Can someone explain how this parameters are measured? What is 5.0 in this
> case for seq_page_cost?

It's an arbitrary number, based on which all the other numbers are
measured.

What people generally do around here is mess with random_page_cost, and
leave seq_page_cost alone. Often, it's the ratio
seq_page_cost/random_page_cost what's most important to the cost
equations results. (seq_page_cost wasn't tunable at all until
recently, say 8.1 or 8.2 AFAIR).

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-10-23 13:43:56 Re: Determine query run-time from pg_* tables
Previous Message Benjamin Weaver 2007-10-23 12:42:18 Re: unicode searches failing that use % and LIKE operators