From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | "Anjan Kumar(dot) A(dot)" <anjankumar(at)cse(dot)iitb(dot)ac(dot)in>, pgsql-chat(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-benchmarks(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Please Help: PostgreSQL Query Optimizer |
Date: | 2005-12-11 19:26:18 |
Message-ID: | 200512111126.18566.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-benchmarks pgsql-chat pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
Anjan,
> In our case we are reading pages from Main Memory File System, but not from
> Disk. Will it be sufficient, if we change the default values of above
> paramters in "src/include/optimizer/cost.h and
> src/backend/utils/misc/postgresql.conf.sample" as follows:
>
> random_page_cost = 4;
This should be dramatically lowered. It's supposed to represent the ratio of
seek-fetches to seq scans on disk. Since there's no disk, it should be a
flat 1.0. However, we are aware that there are flaws in our calculations
involving random_page_cost, such that the actual number for a system where
there is no disk cost would be lower than 1.0. Your research will hopefully
help us find these flaws.
> cpu_tuple_cost = 2;
> cpu_index_tuple_cost = 0.2;
> cpu_operator_cost = 0.05;
I don't see why you're increasing the various cpu_* costs. CPU costs would be
unaffected by the database being in memory. In general, I lower these by a
divisor based on the cpu speed; for example, on a dual-opteron system I lower
the defaults by /6. However, that's completely unrelated to using an MMDB.
So, other than random_page_cost, I don't know of other existing GUCs that
would be directly related to using a disk/not using a disk. How are you
handling shared memory and work memory?
I look forward to hearing more about your test!
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-11 20:41:36 | Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Please Help: PostgreSQL Query Optimizer |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-11 17:19:13 | Re: [DOCS] Please Help: PostgreSQL Query Optimizer |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-11 20:41:36 | Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Please Help: PostgreSQL Query Optimizer |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-11 17:19:13 | Re: [DOCS] Please Help: PostgreSQL Query Optimizer |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-11 20:41:36 | Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Please Help: PostgreSQL Query Optimizer |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-11 17:19:13 | Re: [DOCS] Please Help: PostgreSQL Query Optimizer |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-11 20:41:36 | Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Please Help: PostgreSQL Query Optimizer |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2005-12-11 18:33:57 | Re: Reducing relation locking overhead |