From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jeffrey Tenny <jeffrey(dot)tenny(at)comcast(dot)net> |
Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: performance question (something to do w/ parameterized |
Date: | 2006-05-08 23:37:37 |
Message-ID: | 2731.1147131457@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Jeffrey Tenny <jeffrey(dot)tenny(at)comcast(dot)net> writes:
> The server was already running with random_page_cost=2 today for all tests, because of
> the mods I've made to improve other problem queries in the past (my settings noted below, and
> before in another msg on this topic).
> So to nail this particular query something additional is required (even lower random_page_cost?).
> What's a good value for slower processors/memory and database in memory?
If you're pretty sure the database will always be RAM-resident, then 1.0
is the theoretically correct value.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Klint Gore | 2006-05-09 00:10:19 | Re: performance question (something to do w/ parameterized |
Previous Message | Jeffrey Tenny | 2006-05-08 23:35:15 | Re: performance question (something to do w/ parameterized |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Klint Gore | 2006-05-09 00:10:19 | Re: performance question (something to do w/ parameterized |
Previous Message | Jeffrey Tenny | 2006-05-08 23:35:15 | Re: performance question (something to do w/ parameterized |