Re: More thoughts about planner's cost estimates - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Rod Taylor
Subject Re: More thoughts about planner's cost estimates
Date
Msg-id 1149289515.6071.211.camel@home
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: More thoughts about planner's cost estimates  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: More thoughts about planner's cost estimates  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> One objection to this is that after moving "off the gold standard" of
> 1.0 = one page fetch, there is no longer any clear meaning to the
> cost estimate units; you're faced with the fact that they're just an
> arbitrary scale.  I'm not sure that's such a bad thing, though.  For
> instance, some people might want to try to tune their settings so that
> the estimates are actually comparable to milliseconds of real time.

Any chance that the correspondence to time could be made a part of the
design on purpose and generally advise people to follow that rule? If we
could tell people to run *benchmark* and use those numbers directly as a
first approximation tuning, it could help quite a bit for people new to
PostgreSQL experiencing poor performance.

effective_cache_size then becomes essentially the last hand-set variable
for medium sized installations.
-- 



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: More thoughts about planner's cost estimates
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Ye olde "failed to initialize lc_messages" gotcha