Re: cpu_tuple_cost - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Greg Sabino Mullane
Subject Re: cpu_tuple_cost
Date
Msg-id def6f62ce9d501044843c654a94832ef@biglumber.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: cpu_tuple_cost  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: cpu_tuple_cost  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Re: cpu_tuple_cost  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: cpu_tuple_cost  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
List pgsql-performance
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> Reducing random_page_cost is usually the best way to get the
> planner to favor indexscans more.

On that note, can I raise the idea again of dropping the default
value for random_page_cost in postgresql.conf? I think 4 is too
conservative in this day and age. Certainly the person who will
be negatively impacted by a default drop of 4 to 3 will be the
exception and not the rule.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200503140702
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFCNX2avJuQZxSWSsgRAk7QAJ4lye7pEcQIWMRV2fs15bHGY2zBbACeJtLC
E/vUG/lagjcyWPt9gfngsn0=
=CKIq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Jan Wieck
Date:
Subject: Re: column name is "LIMIT"
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: cpu_tuple_cost