DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type;
	b=v+aAljdNpUUdsnk5et2J9bxOmUP3KYCDzIUnXsAi3AQ1+SY4W7DEvoqfuUuYGyDWhv
	nHN66nCThH47SasGKY0Epwr7fBrOGB1n9Im15e5CSn84K0sdZYr0IwL7ac8Cvy5agXwz
	DAUDW9WB9L95nne5zacrgV4mzhNYTwW2tOSCo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4DD0ACD0.1090801@krogh.cc>
References: <BANLkTikZhYc+h1=YDJfXwZEZc1tN3_VwCg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DB6F4BB020000250003CEB9@gw.wicourts.gov>
	<BANLkTindB68ogMg8zrR7GrYEV+mQQddj0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTik6OaVkJGEjs5--vcynUE36mWbzbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<2823.1305314437@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<BANLkTimTqXAy7_KqQz_OW1RvMbDd9ojfqg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DCD90F5.2010501@agliodbs.com>
	<BANLkTikcVUeRfocJPe_W+jfi5k1+gcLnxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DD0195A.9040305@agliodbs.com>
	<BANLkTika=a95=Pm97Evi-Q7e_9vs4FnkCQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DD07855.8080907@postnewspapers.com.au>
	<4DD07B4E.1020503@2ndquadrant.com> <4DD0AB16.5060808@krogh.cc>
	<4DD0ACD0.1090801@krogh.cc>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 09:45:28 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTimw2xWYQ_Hz4vtLXx-2nZRjRfoMMw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: reducing random_page_cost from 4 to 2 to force index scan
From: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
To: Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc> wrote:
>
> Ok, it may not work as well with index'es, since having 1% in cache may very
> well mean that 90% of all requested blocks are there.. for tables in should
> be more trivial.

Why would the index have a meaningful hot-spot unless the underlying
table had one as well?  (Of course the root block will be a hot-spot,
but certainly not 90% of all requests)

Cheers,

Jeff