Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem

От: Bruce Momjian
Тема: Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem
Дата: ,
Msg-id: 201008120142.o7C1gW214335@momjian.us
(см: обсуждение, исходный текст)
Ответ на: Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Tom Lane)
Ответы: Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Robert Haas)
Список: pgsql-performance

Скрыть дерево обсуждения

Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Peter Hussey, )
 Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Andres Freund, )
 Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Tom Lane, )
  Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Alvaro Herrera, )
   Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Tom Lane, )
 Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Jayadevan M, )
 Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Tom Lane, )
  Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Peter Hussey, )
   Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Robert Haas, )
   Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Tom Lane, )
   Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Hannu Krosing, )
    Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Robert Haas, )
     Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Hannu Krosing, )
      Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Tom Lane, )
       Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Hannu Krosing, )
        Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Hannu Krosing, )
         Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Greg Smith, )
          Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Greg Smith, )
          Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  ("Kevin Grittner", )
           Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Greg Smith, )
            Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  ("Kevin Grittner", )
          Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Hannu Krosing, )
         Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Tom Lane, )
         Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Hannu Krosing, )
          Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  ("Kevin Grittner", )
         Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Hannu Krosing, )
       Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Bruce Momjian, )
        Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Robert Haas, )
         Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Bruce Momjian, )
          Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Bruce Momjian, )
   Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  ("Kevin Grittner", )
 Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem  (Greg Smith, )

Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <> 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.

This confused me.  If we are assuing the data is in
effective_cache_size, why are we adding sequential/random page cost to
the query cost routines?

--
  Bruce Momjian  <>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +


В списке pgsql-performance по дате сообщения:

От: Dimitri
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: 32 vs 64 bit build on Solaris Sparc
От: Justin Pitts
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Advice configuring ServeRAID 8k for performance