Re: How is random_page_cost=4 ok?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Nikolas Everett
Тема Re: How is random_page_cost=4 ok?
Дата
Msg-id d4e11e980810101741rccb1e99v10ebe5d1d9d1ed3b@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: How is random_page_cost=4 ok?  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
Ответы Re: How is random_page_cost=4 ok?  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Re: How is random_page_cost=4 ok?  (Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org>)
Список pgsql-hackers


In any case your experience doesn't match mine. On a machine with a sizable
raid controller setting random_page_cost higher does generate, as expected,
plans with more bitmap heap scans which are in fact faster.

We're running postgres backed by a NetApp 3020 via fiber and have had a lot of success setting random page cost very high (10).  Sequential reads are just that much faster.  I'm not sure if thats because we've configured something wrong or what, but thats a really useful knob for us.

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: autovacuum and TOAST tables
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: \ef should probably append semicolons