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.
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 |
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 |