Anjan,
> In our case we are reading pages from Main Memory File System, but not from
> Disk. Will it be sufficient, if we change the default values of above
> paramters in "src/include/optimizer/cost.h and
> src/backend/utils/misc/postgresql.conf.sample" as follows:
>
> random_page_cost = 4;
This should be dramatically lowered. It's supposed to represent the ratio of
seek-fetches to seq scans on disk. Since there's no disk, it should be a
flat 1.0. However, we are aware that there are flaws in our calculations
involving random_page_cost, such that the actual number for a system where
there is no disk cost would be lower than 1.0. Your research will hopefully
help us find these flaws.
> cpu_tuple_cost = 2;
> cpu_index_tuple_cost = 0.2;
> cpu_operator_cost = 0.05;
I don't see why you're increasing the various cpu_* costs. CPU costs would be
unaffected by the database being in memory. In general, I lower these by a
divisor based on the cpu speed; for example, on a dual-opteron system I lower
the defaults by /6. However, that's completely unrelated to using an MMDB.
So, other than random_page_cost, I don't know of other existing GUCs that
would be directly related to using a disk/not using a disk. How are you
handling shared memory and work memory?
I look forward to hearing more about your test!
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
