Re: Performance

From: Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance
Date: 2011-04-26 18:54:34
Message-ID: 4DB714EA.6090106@fuzzy.cz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Dne 26.4.2011 07:35, Robert Haas napsal(a):
> On Apr 13, 2011, at 6:19 PM, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> wrote:
>> Yes, I've had some lectures on non-linear programming so I'm aware that
>> this won't work if the cost function has multiple extremes (walleys /
>> hills etc.) but I somehow suppose that's not the case of cost estimates.
>
> I think that supposition might turn out to be incorrect, though. Probably
> what will happen on simple queries is that a small change will make no
> difference, and a large enough change will cause a plan change. On
> complex queries it will approach continuous variation but why
> shouldn't there be local minima?

Aaaah, damn! I was not talking about cost estimates - those obviously do
not have this feature, as you've pointed out (thanks!).

I was talking about the 'response time' I mentioned when describing the
autotuning using real workload. The idea is to change the costs a bit
and then measure the average response time - if the overall performance
improved, do another step in the same direction. Etc.

I wonder if there are cases where an increase of random_page_cost would
hurt performance, and another increase would improve it ... And I'm not
talking about individual queries, I'm talking about overall performance.

regards
Tomas

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2011-04-26 21:37:15 Re: reducing random_page_cost from 4 to 2 to force index scan
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2011-04-26 17:57:04 Re: Time to put theory to the test?