On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> marcin mank <marcin.m...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> This proposal is just "hints by the back door", ISTM. As Tom says, there is >>>> a justification for having it on tablespaces but not on individual tables. >> >>> If the parameter is defined as "the chance that a page is in cache" >>> there is very real physical meaning to it. >> >> We have no such parameter... > > > And we want our parameters to be things the DBA has a chance of being > able to estimate.
Do the current parameters meet that standard? When setting seq_page_cost now, don't people have a lot of "Well, we're about this likely to find it in the cache anyway" built into their settings? Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
