"Greg Sabino Mullane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On that note, can I raise the idea again of dropping the default
> value for random_page_cost in postgresql.conf? I think 4 is too
> conservative in this day and age. Certainly the person who will
> be negatively impacted by a default drop of 4 to 3 will be the
> exception and not the rule.

The ones who'd be negatively impacted are the ones we haven't
been hearing from ;-).  To assume that they aren't out there
is a logical fallacy.

I still think that 4 is about right for large databases (where
"large" is in comparison to available RAM).

Also, to the extent that we think these numbers mean anything at all,
we should try to keep them matching the physical parameters we think
they represent.  I think that the "reduce random_page_cost" mantra
is not an indication that that parameter is wrong, but that the
cost models it feeds into need more work.  One thing we *know*
is wrong is the costing of nestloop inner indexscans: there needs
to be a correction for caching of index blocks across repeated
scans.  I've looked at this a few times but not come up with
anything that seemed convincing.  Another thing I've wondered
about more than once is if we shouldn't discount fetching of
higher-level btree pages on the grounds that they're probably
in RAM already, even if the indexscan isn't inside a loop.

                        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