Alvaro Herrera wrote:
It's an arbitrary number, based on which all the other numbers are
measured.
Now that I read more intensively he docs I see that all the cost
parameters are related one with the other.
What people generally do around here is mess with random_page_cost, and
leave seq_page_cost alone. Often, it's the ratio
seq_page_cost/random_page_cost what's most important to the cost
equations results. (seq_page_cost wasn't tunable at all until
recently, say 8.1 or 8.2 AFAIR).
Ok, now the 8.1 server has a RAID1 hardware board with SCSI disks, and
the 8.2 is just a PentiumD with SATA disks (it's my desktop PC where I
do tests). Should I have a lower random_page_cost on a machine that is
likely to have a lower disk IO speed?
--
21:50:04 up 2 days, 9:07, 0 users, load average: 0.92, 0.37, 0.18
---------------------------------------------------------
Lic. Martín Marqués | SELECT 'mmarques' ||
Centro de Telemática | '@' || 'unl.edu.ar';
Universidad Nacional | DBA, Programador,
del Litoral | Administrador
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
