Re: Index Scan cost expression - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Index Scan cost expression
Date
Msg-id 14203.1233068040@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Index Scan cost expression  (Amit Gupta <amit.pc.gupta@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Amit Gupta <amit.pc.gupta@gmail.com> writes:
> Upon taking a cursory look at the cost functions of other operators, I
> realized that available memory (effective_cache_size) is not
> considered for estimating the costs of hash/sort/NLjoin/etc. Why is
> that the case?

The relevant number for those is work_mem not effective_cache_size.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade project status
Next
From: Dave Page
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade project status