Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UpmKD-0001De-LB for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 21:23:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UpmKC-0006xU-VK for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 21:23:25 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UpmKA-0006xL-Sa for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 21:23:22 +0000 Received: from smtp.optionshouse.com ([38.98.137.6] helo=smtp.peak6.com) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UpmJy-0006wr-8M for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 21:23:18 +0000 X-AuditID: 0a64cb20-b7f1f6d000004114-03-51c372bac16b Message-ID: <51C372BA.1040807@optionshouse.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 16:23:06 -0500 From: Shaun Thomas Reply-To: Organization: Peak6 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Josh Berkus CC: , Greg Smith Subject: Re: PostgreSQL settings for running on an SSD drive References: <51C35E6C.1090705@consistentstate.com> <51C36256.6040502@optionshouse.com> <51C366CE.10206@agliodbs.com> In-Reply-To: <51C366CE.10206@agliodbs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.10.201.64] X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrPIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXClcIrobur6HCgwZSDqha3+p6yWHzYNond 4vrMc8wOzB6/7x5k8rh/az2zx4V909gDmKMaGG0S8/LySxJLUhVSUouTbZX8C0oy8/OKPfJL i1MVXDKLk3MSM3NTi5QUMlNslYyVFApyEpNTc1PzSmyVEgsKUvNSlOy4FDCADVBZZp5Cal5y fkpmXrqtkmewv66FhamlrqGSXTwySOhkyTj7ZxljwU2Wisntdg2Mt5i7GDk5JARMJD6ubmCE sMUkLtxbzwZi8wroS3xZtgmshkVAVWL30kesIDabgK7EpP4VYDVCAioSfWdvMIHY/ALCEvs+ NIHViwqESbxfNpUVYo6gxMmZT1hAbBEBZYkJPffA4swCnhLzpt4Cs4UF3CQ2zv/ADDHzJaPE rC1xIDangJbE162tTBD1FhKL3xxkh7DlJba/nQNVryqxonkiG8T9ChL/r7xjmsAoNAvJ6llI 2mchaV/AyLyKUby4LDE5I9O0oDi3pMBIryA1MdtMLy+1ZBMjOJZPK+xg/N5pdYhRgINRiYdX wPRwoBBrYllxZe4hRgkOZiUR3kfBQCHelMTKqtSi/Pii0pzU4kOMPsAwm8gsJZqcD0wzeSXx hsamBqaWpoam5qaGRjiElcR59zEtCxQSSAcmkuzU1ILUIphxTBycUg2M26OX7jF8q5I279b1 l1Hng3y8tNP3Be7Kvpl+dd1phc2b4iSy1H6waF7ekXu7QepUt8HN7+1P1zaFeKX65C/nMtvD 7dp1SergjasdevJf+rPVU59MK3VTMgxZLrB0TkWoUYrridJ7LaxbHG4tfv+wV4vJoOi2QMFK 9aT8a3d2SvjNN/sdJiSkxFKckWioxVxUnAgAMSit3xIDAAA= X-Pg-Spam-Score: -3.2 (---) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-performance Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org On 06/20/2013 03:32 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > Did you compare setting RPC to 1.0 vs. setting it to 1.1, or something > else just slightly higher than SPC? Yes, actually. My favored setting when we were on 8.3 was 1.5. But something with the planner changed pretty drastically when we went to 9.1, and we were getting some really bad query plans unless we *strongly* suggested RPC was cheap. I was afraid I'd have to go lower, but 1 seemed to do the trick. -- Shaun Thomas OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604 312-676-8870 sthomas@optionshouse.com ______________________________________________ See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance