From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Logic of lowering seq_page_cost for SSD?
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:56:14 -0700
Message-ID: <5266CA4E.5050501@agliodbs.com> (raw)
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
All,
I've often seen people lower seq_page_cost for SSD access. This has the
effect of raising CPU costs relative to the costs of disk access.
However, CPUs have also gotten lots faster, so I'm not sure that results
in a better cost balance.
Has anyone done extensive testing on this? What did you find?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
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: josh@agliodbs.com
Subject: Re: Logic of lowering seq_page_cost for SSD?
In-Reply-To: <5266CA4E.5050501@agliodbs.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