From: Mathias Kunter <mathiaskunter@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: random_page_cost configuration parameter
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2021 11:55:00 +0100
Message-ID: <9271c072-e91d-4dc5-c0a9-197f47291671@gmail.com> (raw)
Hello all,
the documentation of the random_page_cost configuration parameter says:
> Although the system will let you set random_page_cost to less than
> seq_page_cost, it is not physically sensible to do so.
Source:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/runtime-config-query.html#RUNTIME-CONFIG-QUERY-CONSTANTS
However, I don't think this statement is true. Consider the situation
where the randomly fetched pages are mostly (or even entirely) cached in
RAM, but where the sequentially fetched pages must be mostly read from
disk. An example for such a scenario is a database system which uses
RAM-cached indices.
Such a database system would be best modeled with random_page_cost <
seq_page_cost. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Best regards
Mathias Kunter
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: mathiaskunter@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: random_page_cost configuration parameter
In-Reply-To: <9271c072-e91d-4dc5-c0a9-197f47291671@gmail.com>
* 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