Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> writes:
> Also if you have fast disk drives, you can reduce random page cost to 2 or 1.5.
Note however that most of the people who have found smaller
random_page_cost to be helpful are in situations where most of their
data fits in RAM. Reducing the cost towards 1 simply reflects the fact
that there's no sequential-fetch advantage when grabbing data that's
already in RAM.
When benchmarking with data sets considerably larger than available
buffer cache, I rather doubt that small random_page_cost would be a good
idea. Still, you might as well experiment to see.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2003-09-29 17:19:33|
|Subject: Re: Performance: BigInt vs Decimal(19,0)|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-09-29 16:26:21|
|Subject: Re: TPC-R benchmarks |