From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jeffrey Tenny <jeffrey.tenny@comcast.net>
Cc: Jim C. Nasby <jnasby@pervasive.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: performance question (something to do w/ parameterized
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 19:37:37 -0400
Message-ID: <2731.1147131457@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <445FD5B3.1010708@comcast.net>
References: <445F7FF8.6070707@comcast.net>
<20060508173812.GW99570@pervasive.com>
<445F9F6B.9040200@comcast.net>
<29345.1147118920@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<445FAB2A.9050401@comcast.net>
<29684.1147121398@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<445FC215.8070804@comcast.net>
<2398.1147129561@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<445FD5B3.1010708@comcast.net>
Jeffrey Tenny <jeffrey.tenny@comcast.net> writes:
> The server was already running with random_page_cost=2 today for all tests, because of
> the mods I've made to improve other problem queries in the past (my settings noted below, and
> before in another msg on this topic).
> So to nail this particular query something additional is required (even lower random_page_cost?).
> What's a good value for slower processors/memory and database in memory?
If you're pretty sure the database will always be RAM-resident, then 1.0
is the theoretically correct value.
regards, tom lane
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, jeffrey.tenny@comcast.net, jnasby@pervasive.com
Subject: Re: performance question (something to do w/ parameterized
In-Reply-To: <2731.1147131457@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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