Re: Cluster vs. non-cluster query planning

From: Nolan Cafferky <Nolan(dot)Cafferky(at)rbsinteractive(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Cluster vs. non-cluster query planning
Date: 2006-05-01 21:08:01
Message-ID: 445678B1.9050908@rbsinteractive.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Tom Lane wrote:

>The first-order knob for tuning indexscan vs seqscan costing is
>random_page_cost. What have you got that set to?
>
>
This is currently at the default of 4. All of my other planner cost
constants are at default values as well. Dropping it to 1 drops the
estimated cost by a comparable ratio:

Index Scan using orders_status_btree_idx on orders o
(cost=1.20..3393.20 rows=7026 width=8) (actual time=0.050..0.314
rows=105 loops=1)
Index Cond: (order_statuses_id = $0)
InitPlan
-> Seq Scan on order_statuses (cost=0.00..1.20 rows=1 width=4)
(actual time=0.017..0.025 rows=1 loops=1)
Filter: ((id_name)::text = 'new'::text)
Total runtime: 0.498 ms

But, I'm guessing that random_page_cost = 1 is not a realistic value.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mikael Carneholm 2006-05-01 21:33:58 Re: Hardware: HP StorageWorks MSA 1500
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-05-01 20:30:44 Re: Cluster vs. non-cluster query planning