Re: reducing random_page_cost from 4 to 2 to force index scan - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Jeff Janes
Subject Re: reducing random_page_cost from 4 to 2 to force index scan
Date
Msg-id BANLkTimw2xWYQ_Hz4vtLXx-2nZRjRfoMMw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: reducing random_page_cost from 4 to 2 to force index scan  (Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc>)
Responses Re: reducing random_page_cost from 4 to 2 to force index scan  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-performance
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc> wrote:
>
> Ok, it may not work as well with index'es, since having 1% in cache may very
> well mean that 90% of all requested blocks are there.. for tables in should
> be more trivial.

Why would the index have a meaningful hot-spot unless the underlying
table had one as well?  (Of course the root block will be a hot-spot,
but certainly not 90% of all requests)

Cheers,

Jeff

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Jeff
Date:
Subject: Re: Using pgiosim realistically
Next
From: John Rouillard
Date:
Subject: Re: Using pgiosim realistically