Re: Feature Request --- was: PostgreSQL Performance Tuning - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: Feature Request --- was: PostgreSQL Performance Tuning
Date
Msg-id 200704271211.12439.josh@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Feature Request --- was: PostgreSQL Performance Tuning  (Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>)
List pgsql-performance
Bill,

> The only one that seems practical (to me) is random_page_cost.  The
> others are all configuration options that I (as a DBA) want to be able
> to decide for myself.

Actually, random_page_cost *should* be a constant "4.0" or "3.5", which
represents the approximate ratio of seek/scan speed which has been
relatively constant across 6 years of HDD technology.  The only reason we
make it a configuration variable is that there's defects in our cost model
which cause users to want to tinker with it.

Mind you, that's gotten better in recent versions as well.  Lately I mostly
tinker with effective_cache_size and the various cpu_* stats rather than
modifying random_page_cost.

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Ray Stell
Date:
Subject: Re: Feature Request --- was: PostgreSQL Performance Tuning
Next
From: Dan Harris
Date:
Subject: Re: Feature Request --- was: PostgreSQL Performance Tuning