From: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: Function execution costs 'n all that |
Date: | 2007-01-17 20:07:36 |
Message-ID: | 45AE8208.9000206@cheapcomplexdevices.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> BTW, I'm thinking that a "cost constant" probably ought to be measured
> in units of cpu_operator_cost. The default for built-in functions would
> thus be 1, at least till such time as someone wants to refine the
> estimates. We'd probably want the default for PL and SQL functions to
> be 10 or 100 or so.
Any chance that costs could eventually change to real-world units?
It's hard for me to guess how many cpu_operator_cost units
something might take; but relatively easy for me to measure
or estimate in fractions-of-a-seconds how long something takes.
I could imagine having the other planner costs be measured in seconds
too - perhaps with the goal of eventually writing some auto-config
code that tries to measure values like cpu_tuple_cost on a given
piece of hardware.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-17 20:13:26 | Re: Function execution costs 'n all that |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-01-17 20:00:35 | Re: Idea for fixing the Windows fsync problem |