| From: | Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: about some parameters |
| Date: | 2010-01-03 07:00:57 |
| Message-ID: | 3073cc9b1001022300m4cd0b826i7f4e79b2a81b7b26@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> another parameter that is interesting is seq_page_cost, AFAIUI all the
>> other cost parameters (in the planner section of course) are relative
>> to this one. so what is the logic in allow changing it?
>
> Please read the discussions that went on when we added that parameter.
>
digging the archives is alway an interesting sport, from this one i
have learnt some things:
1) now i know was the meaning of GUC: Grand Unified Config (one mistery less)
2) that seq_page_cost was added when i was around here but apparently
not looking
3) seems like the idea of this GUC started as a multiplier for all
*_cost parameters but ended being just for random_page_cost
4) ... and that Tom has three hands
(http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-05/msg01346.php)
--
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. +59387171157
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2010-01-03 10:48:56 | Re: So do we really *need* those substring() ops in tab-completion queries? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-03 05:41:05 | Re: So do we really *need* those substring() ops in tab-completion queries? |