> 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
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|