Yes, I saw recommendations for 1.1 early, but why? Why such exactly precision 
number, why 1.1? Is here ever a theoretical or experimental prof?

As for me, random_page_cost depended not only not characteristic of a storage 
device (hdd or ssd), but also on assumptions about how much of the database is 
in memory cache (90% by default). And this is a very rough assumption (of cause 
in ideal whole database must fit in the memory cache).

And so I don't see any reason to recommend exactly value 1.1, simple 1 is good 
too, especially for an ideal server with huge memory cache.


> 27 апр. 2020 г., в 19:16, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> написал(а):
> 
> I have been recommending 1.1 as a value for random_page_cost for SSDs
> for years, and I think it would be helpful to suggest that value, so doc
> patch attached.
> 
> -- 
>  Bruce Momjian  <br...@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
>  EnterpriseDB                             https://enterprisedb.com
> 
> + As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
> +                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +
> <random.diff>



Reply via email to