Re: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.21.0001271856200.356-100000@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2000-01-26, Tom Lane mentioned: > BTW, I have been thinking that it'd be a lot better if these flags could > be twiddled via SET/SHOW commands, instead of having to restart psql. > Nothing done about it yet, but it's an idea... > > Also, you already can twiddle the basic cost parameters (cpu_page_weight > and cpu_index_page_weight) via SET variables whose names I forget at the > moment. There will be probably be at least one more such variable > before 7.0 comes out, to control cost of random page fetch vs. sequential. Independent of this, I thought numerous times (when similar "tuning" issues came up) that it's time for a real unified configuration file, which includes pg_options, the geqo what-not, an option for each of these backend tuning options (join methods, fsync), heck maybe even the port number and an alternative location for temp/sort files. Kind of put all the administration in one place. Something to think about maybe. -- Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115 peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: