Re: explanation for random_page_cost is outdated

Yes, I saw recommendations for 1.1 early, but why? Why such exactly precision number, why 1.1? Is here ever a theoretical or experimental prof?

As for me, random_page_cost depended not only not characteristic of a storage device (hdd or ssd), but also on assumptions about how much of the database is in memory cache (90% by default). And this is a very rough assumption (of cause in ideal whole database must fit in the memory cache).

And so I don't see any reason to recommend exactly value 1.1, simple 1 is good too, especially for an ideal server with huge memory cache.

> 27 апр. 2020 г., в 19:16, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> написал(а):
>
> I have been recommending 1.1 as a value for random_page_cost for SSDs
> for years, and I think it would be helpful to suggest that value, so doc
> patch attached.
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
> EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
>
> + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
> + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
> <random.diff>