| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martin Marques <martin(at)bugs(dot)unl(dot)edu(dot)ar> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Bitmap Heap scan 8.1/8.2 |
| Date: | 2007-10-23 21:52:57 |
| Message-ID: | 4109.1193176377@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Martin Marques <martin(at)bugs(dot)unl(dot)edu(dot)ar> writes:
> Ok, now the 8.1 server has a RAID1 hardware board with SCSI disks, and
> the 8.2 is just a PentiumD with SATA disks (it's my desktop PC where I
> do tests). Should I have a lower random_page_cost on a machine that is
> likely to have a lower disk IO speed?
I'd guess the other way round: cheaper disks are likely to have worse
seek speeds, which translates to random accesses being proportionally
slower.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-23 22:01:39 | Re: data statistic functions |
| Previous Message | Kevin Hunter | 2007-10-23 21:35:27 | Re: data statistic functions |