Re: Changing the default random_page_cost value

From: Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Changing the default random_page_cost value
Date: 2024-10-25 00:01:11
Message-ID: CAKAnmm+0UEcPZ0oC+7att-EAU7jXtkPJ1QcJ4v=sWzdkU92r+Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 5:15 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:

> I am not a fan of this patch. I don't see why _removing_ the magnetic
> part helps because you then have no logic for any 1.2 was chosen.

Okay, but we have no documented logic on why 4.0 was chosen either. :)

I would put the magnetic in a separate paragraph perhaps, and recommend
> 4.0 for it.

Sounds doable. Even in the pre-SSD age I recall lowering this as a fairly
standard practice, but I'm fine with a recommendation of 4. Partly because
I doubt anyone will use it much.

Also, per-tablespace makes sense because of physical media
> differences, but what purpose would per-database and per-role serve?
> Also, per-tablespace is not a connection-activated item like the other
> two.
>

Good point, I withdraw that part.

Cheers,
Greg

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Sabino Mullane 2024-10-25 00:13:28 Re: Changing the default random_page_cost value
Previous Message Andy Fan 2024-10-24 23:51:36 Re: [PoC] Partition path cache