Re: How is random_page_cost=4 ok?

From: Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Postgres <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: How is random_page_cost=4 ok?
Date: 2008-10-10 21:35:39
Message-ID: 48EFCAAB.7020702@cheapcomplexdevices.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> In particular, if the OS lays out successive file pages in a way that
> provides zero latency between logically adjacent blocks, I'd bet a good
> bit that a Postgres seqscan would miss the read timing every time, and
> degrade to handling about one block per disk rotation.

Unless the OS does some readahead when it sees something like a seq scan?

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2008-10-10 21:56:48 Re: How is random_page_cost=4 ok?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-10-10 21:00:35 Re: How is random_page_cost=4 ok?