Re: How is random_page_cost=4 ok?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: How is random_page_cost=4 ok?
Дата
Msg-id 2756.1223672435@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: How is random_page_cost=4 ok?  (Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>)
Ответы Re: How is random_page_cost=4 ok?  (Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com>)
Re: How is random_page_cost=4 ok?  (Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> writes:
> ...  So the true random/sequential ratio 
> reaches crazy numbers.

Bear in mind that seq_page_cost and random_page_cost are intended to
represent the time to read *and process* a page, so there's some CPU
component involved there, and this limits the ratio that could be
reached in practice.

In particular, if the OS lays out successive file pages in a way that
provides zero latency between logically adjacent blocks, I'd bet a good
bit that a Postgres seqscan would miss the read timing every time, and
degrade to handling about one block per disk rotation.  Those 100MB/s
numbers are just mirages as far as seqscan speed goes.
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: latestCompletedXid
Следующее
От: Ron Mayer
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: How is random_page_cost=4 ok?