| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Changing the default random_page_cost value |
| Date: | 2024-10-15 02:38:01 |
| Message-ID: | 3863754.1728959881@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Yeah, I think any effort to change the default value for this setting
> would require some analysis to prove that the newly proposed default
> is a more suitable setting than the current default. I mean, why 1.2
> and not 1.1 or 1.3? Where's the evidence that 1.2 is the best value
> for this?
Yeah, that's been my main concern about this proposal too.
I recall that when we settled on 4.0 as a good number for
spinning-rust drives, it came out of some experimentation that
I'd done that involved multiple-day-long tests. I don't recall any
more details than that sadly, but perhaps trawling the mailing list
archives would yield useful info. It looks like the 4.0 value came
in with b1577a7c7 of 2000-02-15, so late 1999/early 2000 would be the
time frame to look in.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | px shi | 2024-10-15 02:49:46 | Re: a litter question about mdunlinkfiletag function |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2024-10-15 02:20:31 | Re: Changing the default random_page_cost value |