Re: Shouldn't the planner have a higher cost for reverse index scans? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: Shouldn't the planner have a higher cost for reverse index scans?
Date
Msg-id 49DF7CE5.4020404@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Shouldn't the planner have a higher cost for reverse index scans?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Shouldn't the planner have a higher cost for reverse index scans?
List pgsql-performance
Tom,

>> Now, while index scans (for indexes on disk) aren't 100% sequential
>> reads, it seems like we should be increasing (substantially) the
>> estimated cost of reverse index scans if the index is likely to be on
>> disk.  No?
>
> AFAICS this is already folded into random_page_cost.

Not as far as I can tell.   It looks to me like the planner is assuming
that a forwards index scan and a reverse index scan will have the same
cost.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
www.pgexperts.com

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: Using IOZone to simulate DB access patterns
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Using IOZone to simulate DB access patterns