On 06/20/2013 05:23 PM, Shaun Thomas wrote:
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.
That would be perverse, surely, but on Fusion-IO RPC = SPC seems to make
sense unless you assume that cache misses will be higher for random
reads than for sequential reads.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
