X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B92CB9FA15C
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon,  8 May 2006 20:37:50 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 28070-03
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon,  8 May 2006 20:37:41 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC3FA9F9D82
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Mon,  8 May 2006 20:37:41 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k48NbbGU002732;
	Mon, 8 May 2006 19:37:37 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jeffrey Tenny <jeffrey.tenny@comcast.net>
cc: "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: performance question (something to do w/ parameterized 
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Jeffrey Tenny <jeffrey.tenny@comcast.net>
	message dated "Mon, 08 May 2006 19:35:15 -0400"
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 19:37:37 -0400
Message-ID: <2731.1147131457@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200605/162
X-Sequence-Number: 18949

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