Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I enclose a doc patch for the effective_cache_size parameter in
> runtime.sgml: efcdoc.patch

Applied after translation into English ;-)

> Also, another minor patch which prevents effective_cache_size and
> random_page_cost from being set incorrectly: plancost.patch
> - previously it was possible to set effective_cache_size to 0, which
> would then be ignored and treated as 1 at run-time, so set minimum to 1
> and remove test at run-time.

I applied the guc.c change but did not remove the run-time test, just
to be on the safe side.

> - previously it was possible to set random_page_cost as a fractional
> value between 0 and 1, which screws up planner estimation, so set
> minimum value of 1 (i.e. random cost same as sequential cost).

Did not apply this.  People sometimes use random_cost < 1 to force the
planner to pick index scans.  Ideally this shouldn't be necessary...

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to