Message-ID: <4C040488.30906@krogh.cc>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 20:48:40 +0200
From: Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100423 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: planner costs in "warm cache" tests
References: <4C02A342.40801@krogh.cc> <14644.1275244491@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <14644.1275244491@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2010-05-30 20:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jesper Krogh<jesper@krogh.cc>  writes:
>    
>> testdb=# set seq_page_cost = 0.00001;
>> SET
>> testdb=# set random_page_cost = 0.00001;
>> SET
>>      
> Well, hmm, I really doubt that that represents reality either.  A page
> access is by no means "free" even when the page is already in cache.
> I don't recall anyone suggesting that you set these numbers to less
> than perhaps 0.01.
>
>    
Thank you for the prompt response. Is it a "false assumption" that the
cost should in some metric between different plans be a measurement
of actual run-time in a dead-disk run?

It should most likely be matching a typical workload situation, but that
it really hard to tell anything about, so my "feeling" would be that the
dead disk case is the one closest?

-- 
Jesper