Re: Script to compute random page cost - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nick Fankhauser
Subject Re: Script to compute random page cost
Date
Msg-id NEBBLAAHGLEEPCGOBHDGGENKFLAA.nickf@ontko.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Script to compute random page cost  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Script to compute random page cost  ("Nick Fankhauser" <nickf@ontko.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce-

With the change in the script that I mentioned to you off-list (which I
believe just pointed it at our "real world" data), I got the following
results with 6 successive runs on each of our two development platforms:

(We're running PGSQL 7.2.1 on Debian Linux 2.4)

System 1:
1.2 GHz Athlon Processor, 512MB RAM, Database on IDE hard drive
random_page_cost = 0.857143
random_page_cost = 0.809524
random_page_cost = 0.809524
random_page_cost = 0.809524
random_page_cost = 0.857143
random_page_cost = 0.884615

System 2:
Dual 1.2Ghz Athlon MP Processors, SMP enabled, 1 GB RAM, Database on Ultra
SCSI RAID 5 with Hardware controller.
random_page_cost = 0.894737
random_page_cost = 0.842105
random_page_cost = 0.894737
random_page_cost = 0.894737
random_page_cost = 0.842105
random_page_cost = 0.894737


I was surprised that the SCSI RAID drive is generally slower than IDE, but
the values are in line with the results that others have been getting.

-Nick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Bruce Momjian
> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 1:14 AM
> To: PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Script to compute random page cost
>
>
>
> OK, turns out that the loop for sequential scan ran fewer times and was
> skewing the numbers.  I have a new version at:
>
>     ftp://candle.pha.pa.us/pub/postgresql/randcost
>
> I get _much_ lower numbers now for random_page_cost.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: bug?
Next
From: Joe Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: bug?