Re: [HACKERS] Please Help: PostgreSQL Query Optimizer

От Anjan Kumar. A.
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Please Help: PostgreSQL Query Optimizer
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Please Help: PostgreSQL Query Optimizer  (Josh Berkus <>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Please Help: PostgreSQL Query Optimizer
Список pgsql-docs

Since sequential access is not significantly faster than random access in a MMDB, random_page_cost will be
approximatelysame as sequential page fetch cost. 

As every thing is present in Main Memory, we need to give approximately same cost to read/write to Main Memory and CPU

But, in PostgreSQL  all costs are  scaled relative to a page fetch. If we make both sequential_page_fetch_cost and
random_page_costto "1", then  we need to increase the various cpu_* paramters by multiplying the default values with
appropriate Scaling Factor.  Now, we need to determine this Scaling Factor. 

Still, i want to confirm whether this approach is the correct one.

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005, Josh Berkus wrote:

> Anjan,
>> In our case we are reading pages from Main Memory File System, but not from
>> Disk. Will it be sufficient, if we change the  default values of above
>> paramters in "src/include/optimizer/cost.h and
>> src/backend/utils/misc/postgresql.conf.sample" as follows:
>>          random_page_cost = 4;
> This should be dramatically lowered.  It's supposed to represent the ratio of
> seek-fetches to seq scans on disk.  Since there's no disk, it should be a
> flat 1.0.   However, we are aware that there are flaws in our calculations
> involving random_page_cost, such that the actual number for a system where
> there is no disk cost would be lower than 1.0.   Your research will hopefully
> help us find these flaws.
>>          cpu_tuple_cost = 2;
>>          cpu_index_tuple_cost = 0.2;
>>          cpu_operator_cost = 0.05;
> I don't see why you're increasing the various cpu_* costs.  CPU costs would be
> unaffected by the database being in memory.   In general, I lower these by a
> divisor based on the cpu speed; for example, on a dual-opteron system I lower
> the defaults by /6.   However, that's completely unrelated to using an MMDB.
> So, other than random_page_cost, I don't know of other existing GUCs that
> would be directly related to using a disk/not using a disk.  How are you
> handling shared memory and work memory?
> I look forward to hearing more about your test!


Anjan Kumar A.
MTech2,  Comp Sci.,
Do not handicap your children by making their lives easy.
         -- Robert Heinlein

В списке pgsql-docs по дате отправления:

От: Tom Lane
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Please Help: PostgreSQL Query Optimizer
От: Devrim GUNDUZ
Сообщение: Moving FAQs to PgFoundry