Re: Cluster vs. non-cluster query planning

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Nolan Cafferky <Nolan(dot)Cafferky(at)rbsinteractive(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Cluster vs. non-cluster query planning
Date: 2006-05-01 23:35:02
Message-ID: 20934.1146526502@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Nolan Cafferky <Nolan(dot)Cafferky(at)rbsinteractive(dot)com> writes:
> But, I'm guessing that random_page_cost = 1 is not a realistic value.

Well, that depends. If all your data can be expected to fit in memory
then it is a realistic value. (If not, you should be real careful not
to make performance decisions on the basis of test cases that *do* fit
in RAM...)

In any case, if I recall your numbers correctly you shouldn't need to
drop it nearly that far to get the thing to make the right choice.
A lot of people run with random_page_cost set to 2 or so.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nolan Cafferky 2006-05-02 00:01:59 Re: Cluster vs. non-cluster query planning
Previous Message Mikael Carneholm 2006-05-01 21:33:58 Re: Hardware: HP StorageWorks MSA 1500