Re: Optimizer(?) off by factor of 3 ... ? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Marc G. Fournier
Subject Re: Optimizer(?) off by factor of 3 ... ?
Date
Msg-id 20020211222159.N59276-100000@mail1.hub.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Optimizer(?) off by factor of 3 ... ?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Optimizer(?) off by factor of 3 ... ?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
the postgresql.conf file ... for testing, I used 'set enable_seqscan'
after the server was live to turn on/off, this is just hte default ...

tcpip_socket = true
max_connections = 200 # 1-1024
port = 5434
sort_mem = 4024
shared_buffers = 32768
fsync = false
wal_buffers = 32
debug_pretty_print = true
enable_seqscan = false


On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> I'm trying to work out how the planner arrived at the numbers you're
> showing; the hashjoin cost estimate seems a little lower than I'd
> expect.  Are you using nonstandard values for any of the planner cost
> factors?  (cpu_operator_cost, etc)  How about sort_mem?
>
>             regards, tom lane
>



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Optimizer(?) off by factor of 3 ... ?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Optimizer(?) off by factor of 3 ... ?