Re: How is random_page_cost=4 ok? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nikolas Everett
Subject Re: How is random_page_cost=4 ok?
Date
Msg-id d4e11e980810101741rccb1e99v10ebe5d1d9d1ed3b@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: How is random_page_cost=4 ok?  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: How is random_page_cost=4 ok?
Re: How is random_page_cost=4 ok?
List pgsql-hackers


In any case your experience doesn't match mine. On a machine with a sizable
raid controller setting random_page_cost higher does generate, as expected,
plans with more bitmap heap scans which are in fact faster.

We're running postgres backed by a NetApp 3020 via fiber and have had a lot of success setting random page cost very high (10).  Sequential reads are just that much faster.  I'm not sure if thats because we've configured something wrong or what, but thats a really useful knob for us.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: autovacuum and TOAST tables
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: \ef should probably append semicolons