On 18/02/14 03:48, Tom Lane wrote:
Gavin Flower <gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz> writes:
On 17/02/14 15:26, Robert Haas wrote:
I don't really know about cpu_tuple_cost. Kevin's often advocated
raising it, but I haven't heard anyone else advocate for that. I
think we need data points from more people to know whether or not
that's a good idea in general.
Processors have been getting faster, relative to spinning rust, over the
years. So it puzzles me why anybody would want to raise the
cpu_tuple_cost!
The case where this is sensible is where your database mostly fits in
RAM, so that the cost of touching the underlying spinning rust isn't
so relevant. The default cost settings are certainly not very good
for such scenarios.
regards, tom lane
Thanks.
That is obvious... once you pointed it out!
Cheers,
Gavin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
