> One objection to this is that after moving "off the gold standard" of
> 1.0 = one page fetch, there is no longer any clear meaning to the
> cost estimate units; you're faced with the fact that they're just an
> arbitrary scale.  I'm not sure that's such a bad thing, though.  For
> instance, some people might want to try to tune their settings so that
> the estimates are actually comparable to milliseconds of real time.

Any chance that the correspondence to time could be made a part of the
design on purpose and generally advise people to follow that rule? If we
could tell people to run *benchmark* and use those numbers directly as a
first approximation tuning, it could help quite a bit for people new to
PostgreSQL experiencing poor performance.

effective_cache_size then becomes essentially the last hand-set variable
for medium sized installations.
-- 

In response to

• Re: More thoughts about planner's cost estimates at 2006-06-02 22:36:40 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: More thoughts about planner's cost estimates at 2006-06-02 23:38:57 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2006-06-02 23:21:05
	Subject: Ye olde "failed to initialize lc_messages" gotcha
Previous:	From: Greg Stark	Date: 2006-06-02 22:59:18
	Subject: Re: More thoughts about planner's cost estimates