On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 3:40 PM jian xu <jamesxu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks Laurenz. It is ok that these values are "arbitrary scale", but we still need to calibrate them to get the correct "arbitrary scale". For example if seq_page_cost is 1 and cpu_tuple_cost is 0.01, how to verify the io seq cost is 100 times slower than cpu access cost？
"enable_seqscan" and "enable_nestloop" can work in some cases, but it doesn’t work with any cases.
Does anyone have experience to calibrate the cost model parameters to get the correct value? Thanks
I put a lot of time into it, and I think you will find that there is no consistent way to do so. For cpu_tuple_cost, for example, are the hint bits already set? Do they need to get set? Are the clog pages still in memory? Is there contention on the lock used to determine if a given transaction is still running? How many columns does the table have? How many of them need to be accessed for the current case, and how far left and right are they in the table and are they toasted?
For seq reads, how much contention is there for the buffer mapping partition lock? What is the throughput of your IO system? How many other seq reads will be occuring at the same time? Etc.
For any change you intend to make, do you have a good enough load generator and test system set up so you can test that it doesn't make something else worse?
Cheers,
Jeff
