From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 8.2 and 8.3 postgresql.conf oddity |
Date: | 2008-01-23 17:04:11 |
Message-ID: | 22060.1201107851@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
"Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Jan 23, 2008 4:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> What do you find odd about it? Whatever scale you choose to think these
>> values are in, they all have to be on the same scale.
> So they are not defined in relation compared to the sequential page
> fetch cost as they were before?
Well, you could choose to stick to the traditional scale, in which
seq_page_cost is always 1.0 and everything else is relative to that.
Or you could try to make them all measure actual milliseconds on
your actual machine. Or something else.
> I mean, if I change seq_page_cost
> only, it doesn't change the overall behaviour?
Certainly it would. If you multiply *all* the cost constants by the same
factor, then the behavior wouldn't change.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | elein | 2008-01-23 19:22:06 | Statement Timeout Message Incorrect |
Previous Message | Guillaume Smet | 2008-01-23 16:48:14 | Re: 8.2 and 8.3 postgresql.conf oddity |