From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Message-Id: <201008120142.o7C1gW214335@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and
 work_mem
In-Reply-To: <22961.1280944836@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:42:32 -0400 (EDT)
CC: Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndquadrant.com>,
 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Peter Hussey <peter@labkey.com>,
	pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > Of course there are more variables than just *_page_cost, so if you nail
> > down any other one, you may end with less than 1 for both page costs.
> 
> > I have always used seq_page_cost = 1 in my thinking and adjusted others
> > relative to it.
> 
> Right, seq_page_cost = 1 is sort of the traditional reference point,
> but you don't have to do it that way.  The main point here is that for
> an all-in-RAM database, the standard page access costs are too high
> relative to the CPU effort costs:
> 
> regression=# select name, setting from pg_settings where name like '%cost';
>          name         | setting 
> ----------------------+---------
>  cpu_index_tuple_cost | 0.005
>  cpu_operator_cost    | 0.0025
>  cpu_tuple_cost       | 0.01
>  random_page_cost     | 4
>  seq_page_cost        | 1
> (5 rows)
> 
> To model an all-in-RAM database, you can either dial down both
> random_page_cost and seq_page_cost to 0.1 or so, or set random_page_cost
> to 1 and increase all the CPU costs.  The former is less effort ;-)
> 
> It should be noted also that there's not all that much evidence backing
> up the default values of the cpu_xxx_cost variables.  In the past those
> didn't matter much because I/O costs always swamped CPU costs anyway.
> But I can foresee us having to twiddle those defaults and maybe refine
> the CPU cost model more, as all-in-RAM cases get more common.

This confused me.  If we are assuing the data is in
effective_cache_size, why are we adding sequential/random page cost to
the query cost routines?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +