From: PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
To: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Cc: ignacio.alonso@microsoft.com
Subject: Definition of random_page_cost seems to invert correlation of that setting and seq_page_cost
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 12:30:25 +0000
Message-ID: <171016022562.644.8257823941386335046@wrigleys.postgresql.org> (raw)
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/runtime-config-query.html
Description:
While reading the following section in the documentation
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/runtime-config-query.html#GUC-RANDOM-PAGE-COST
I found something which looks incorrect to me.
If I understand this setting correctly, the following sentence:
"Reducing this value relative to seq_page_cost will cause the system to
prefer index scans; raising it will make index scans look relatively more
expensive."
should rather be:
"Raising this value relative to seq_page_cost will cause the system to
prefer index scans; reducing it will make index scans look relatively more
expensive."
Thanks,
Nacho
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: noreply@postgresql.org, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org, ignacio.alonso@microsoft.com
Subject: Re: Definition of random_page_cost seems to invert correlation of that setting and seq_page_cost
In-Reply-To: <171016022562.644.8257823941386335046@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox