From: | Jean-Luc Lachance <jllachan(at)nsd(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Sam Liddicott <sam(dot)liddicott(at)ananova(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 7.2.1 optimises very badly against 7.2 |
Date: | 2002-07-12 14:45:13 |
Message-ID: | 3D2EEB79.F20AD831@nsd.ca |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Just curious,
Is the number of record per page and the number of key per page taken in
consideration?
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Sam Liddicott" <sam(dot)liddicott(at)ananova(dot)com> writes:
> > Do you feel the random page cost of 3 is good to solve this?
>
> For the moment, anyway. There have been a couple of rounds of
> pgsql-hackers discussion about whether to lower the default value of
> random_page_cost, but so far no one has done any experiments that
> would be needed to establish a good new value. (The current default
> of 4.0 is based on some old experiments I did. I'm quite willing to
> accept that those experiments might have been flawed, but not willing
> to replace the number without seeing better experiments...)
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-07-12 15:07:33 | Re: workaround for lack of REPLACE() function |
Previous Message | Dmitry Tkach | 2002-07-12 14:34:27 | Re: [SQL] Please, HELP! Why is the query plan so wrong??? |