From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates |
Date: | 2000-01-21 01:11:19 |
Message-ID: | 25651.948417079@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> writes:
>> to be useful for cost estimating. We could make it a parameter like
>> we do for CPU_PAGE_WEIGHT ... but you know and I know that no one
>> ever bothers to adjust those numbers in the field ...
> Would it be possible to place those parameters as run-time
> settings and then write a utility that can ship with the
> distribution to determine those values? Kind of a self-tuning
> utility?
Maybe. I'm not sure the average user would want to run it ---
to get believable numbers, you have to be using a table considerably
bigger than the kernel's disk cache, which means it takes a while.
(I've been testing with a gigabyte-sized table ... one of the index
scan runs took thirty hours :-( ... fortunately I have this machine
to myself, or there would have been some howls about the load.)
But it'd be nice to have comparable numbers for different platforms.
What I was really hoping was that someone on the list would be aware
of existing research I could borrow from.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-01-21 01:44:20 | RE: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates |
Previous Message | Mike Mascari | 2000-01-21 00:49:55 | Re: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates |