Re: Initial prefetch performance testing

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Initial prefetch performance testing
Date: 2008-09-23 13:49:57
Message-ID: 27545.1222177797@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Perhaps access paths which expect to be able to prefetch most of their
> accesses should use random_page_cost / effective_spindle_count for their i/o
> costs?

> But then if people don't set random_page_cost high enough they could easily
> find themselves with random fetches being costed as less expensive than
> sequential fetches. And I have a feeling it'll be a hard sell to get people to
> set random_page_cost in the double digits let alone triple digits.

Well, we could use something like
Max(random_page_cost / effective_spindle_count, seq_page_cost)
to ensure the result remains somewhat sane.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2008-09-23 13:55:35 Re: Proposal: move column defaults into pg_attribute along with attacl
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-09-23 13:42:09 Re: Proposal: move column defaults into pg_attribute along with attacl