Hannu Krosing <hannu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Of course there are more variables than just *_page_cost, so if you nail
> down any other one, you may end with less than 1 for both page costs.
> I have always used seq_page_cost = 1 in my thinking and adjusted others
> relative to it.
Right, seq_page_cost = 1 is sort of the traditional reference point,
but you don't have to do it that way. The main point here is that for
an all-in-RAM database, the standard page access costs are too high
relative to the CPU effort costs:
regression=# select name, setting from pg_settings where name like '%cost';
name | setting
----------------------+---------
cpu_index_tuple_cost | 0.005
cpu_operator_cost | 0.0025
cpu_tuple_cost | 0.01
random_page_cost | 4
seq_page_cost | 1
(5 rows)
To model an all-in-RAM database, you can either dial down both
random_page_cost and seq_page_cost to 0.1 or so, or set random_page_cost
to 1 and increase all the CPU costs. The former is less effort ;-)
It should be noted also that there's not all that much evidence backing
up the default values of the cpu_xxx_cost variables. In the past those
didn't matter much because I/O costs always swamped CPU costs anyway.
But I can foresee us having to twiddle those defaults and maybe refine
the CPU cost model more, as all-in-RAM cases get more common.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
