From: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@mail.com>
To: ktm@rice.edu,"Böckler Andreas" <andy@boeckler.org>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Query-Planer from 6seconds TO DAYS
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:30:05 -0400
Message-ID: <20121026153006.306910@gmx.com> (raw)
ktm@rice.edu wrote:
> You have the sequential_page_cost = 1 which is better than or equal
> to the random_page_cost in all of your examples. It sounds like you
> need a sequential_page_cost of 5, 10, 20 or more.
The goal should be to set the cost factors so that they model actual
costs for you workload in your environment. In what cases have you
seen the sequential scan of a large number of adjacent pages from
disk take longer than randomly reading the same number of pages from
disk? (I would love to see the bonnie++ number for that, if you have
them.)
-Kevin
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: kgrittn@mail.com, andy@boeckler.org, jeff.janes@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Query-Planer from 6seconds TO DAYS
In-Reply-To: <20121026153006.306910@gmx.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