Re: Volunteer to build a configuration tool
От | PFC |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Volunteer to build a configuration tool |
Дата | |
Msg-id | op.tt7mn0m9cigqcu@apollo13 обсуждение исходный текст |
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 |
> To me, the worst catch-22 we face in this area is that we'd like the > optimizer's choices of plan to be stable and understandable, but the > real-world costs of queries depend enormously on short-term conditions > such as how much of the table has been sucked into RAM recently by > other queries. I have no good answer to that one. Yeah, there is currently no way to tell the optimizer things like : - this table/portion of a table is not frequently accessed, so it won't be in the cache, so please use low-seek plans (like bitmap index scan) - this table/portion of a table is used all the time so high-seek-count plans can be used like index scan or nested loops since everything is in RAM Except planner hints (argh) I see no way to give this information to the machine... since it's mostly in the mind of the DBA. Maybe a per-table "cache temperature" param (hot, warm, cold), but what about the log table, the end of which is cached, but not the old records ? It's messy. Still PG does a pretty excellent job most of the time.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: