Re: Volunteer to build a configuration tool

From: PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Greg Smith" <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Volunteer to build a configuration tool
Date: 2007-06-20 07:49:02
Message-ID: op.tt7mn0m9cigqcu@apollo13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs pgsql-performance


> To me, the worst catch-22 we face in this area is that we'd like the
> optimizer's choices of plan to be stable and understandable, but the
> real-world costs of queries depend enormously on short-term conditions
> such as how much of the table has been sucked into RAM recently by
> other queries. I have no good answer to that one.

Yeah, there is currently no way to tell the optimizer things like :

- this table/portion of a table is not frequently accessed, so it won't
be in the cache, so please use low-seek plans (like bitmap index scan)
- this table/portion of a table is used all the time so high-seek-count
plans can be used like index scan or nested loops since everything is in
RAM

Except planner hints (argh) I see no way to give this information to the
machine... since it's mostly in the mind of the DBA. Maybe a per-table
"cache temperature" param (hot, warm, cold), but what about the log table,
the end of which is cached, but not the old records ? It's messy.

Still PG does a pretty excellent job most of the time.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2007-06-20 15:21:01 Re: Volunteer to build a configuration tool
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-06-20 07:06:27 Re: Volunteer to build a configuration tool

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message PFC 2007-06-20 07:54:32 Short row header
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-06-20 07:06:27 Re: Volunteer to build a configuration tool