Re: cpu_tuple_cost

From: Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, David Brown <time(at)bigpond(dot)net(dot)au>, Gregory Stark <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: cpu_tuple_cost
Date: 2005-03-17 18:26:53
Message-ID: 20050317182653.GA55368@winnie.fuhr.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 09:54:29AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > Yes it is.  I ran experiments back in the late 90s to derive it.
> > Check the archives.
>
> Hmmmm ... which list?

These look like relevant threads:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2000-01/msg00910.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2000-02/msg00215.php

--
Michael Fuhr
http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2005-03-17 21:27:25 Re: One tuple per transaction
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-03-17 18:15:32 Re: multi-column index