Re: Function execution costs 'n all that

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Function execution costs 'n all that
Date: 2007-01-17 20:13:26
Message-ID: 4748.1169064806@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> BTW, I'm thinking that a "cost constant" probably ought to be measured
>> in units of cpu_operator_cost.

> Any chance that costs could eventually change to real-world units?

Define "real world units".

If you like you can try to adjust things so that cpu_operator_cost bears
some relation to elapsed-msec-on-your-own-machine, and scale everything
else accordingly; indeed that's why we added seq_page_cost in 8.2.
But it's awfully hard to see the numbers being very portable.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-01-17 21:48:06 Design notes for EquivalenceClasses
Previous Message Ron Mayer 2007-01-17 20:07:36 Re: Function execution costs 'n all that