Re: Volunteer to build a configuration tool
| От | Greg Smith |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Volunteer to build a configuration tool |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | Pine.GSO.4.64.0706200224430.16657@westnet.com обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: Volunteer to build a configuration tool (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Volunteer to build a configuration tool
|
| Список | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Tom Lane wrote: > I think what would be much more useful in the long run is some serious > study of the parameters themselves. For instance, random_page_cost is a > self-admitted oversimplification of reality. If I could figure out who would sponsor such a study that's what I'd be doing right now. I have studies on many of the commit-related parameters I'll have ready in another few days, those are straightforward to map out. But you know what I have never found? A good benchmark that demonstrates how well complicated queries perform to run studies on things like random_page_cost against. Many of the tuning knobs on the query optimizer seem very opaque to me so far, and I'm not sure how to put together a proper test to illuminate their operation and map out their useful range. Here's an example of one of the simplest questions in this area to demonstate things I wonder about. Let's say I have a properly indexed database of some moderate size such that you're in big trouble if you do a sequential scan. How can I tell if effective_cache_size is in the right ballpark so it will do what I want to effectively navigate that? People back into a setting for that parameter right now based on memory in their system, but I never see anybody going "since your main table is X GB large, and its index is Y GB, you really need enough memory to set effective_cache_size to Z GB if you want queries/joins on that table to perform well". -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: