From: | Benedikt Grundmann <bgrundmann(at)janestreet(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: random_page_cost vs seq_page_cost |
Date: | 2012-02-08 09:28:49 |
Message-ID: | 20120208092849.GC12111@ldn-qws-004.delacy.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07/02/12 19:58, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 05:06:18PM -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
> > On 02/07/2012 03:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >Where did you see that there will be an improvement in the 9.2
> > >documentation? I don't see an improvement.
> >
> > I commented that I'm hoping for an improvement in the documentation
> > of how much timing overhead impacts attempts to measure this area
> > better. That's from the "add timing of buffer I/O requests" feature
> > submission. I'm not sure if Bene read too much into that or not; I
> > didn't mean to imply that the docs around random_page_cost have
> > gotten better.
I guess I did. But I'm very glad that as a side effect Bruce and Greg
have improved it ;-)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2012-02-08 09:35:03 | Re: [HACKERS] pgindent README correction |
Previous Message | Hitoshi Harada | 2012-02-08 09:08:21 | Re: Memory usage during sorting |