| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should we update the random_page_cost default value? |
| Date: | 2025-10-06 05:42:50 |
| Message-ID: | 7d13c50c8d997e3434ecd1924317efa21f2af9ac.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2025-10-06 at 01:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> But if what
> we're trying to model is net resource demands, with an eye to
> minimizing the total system load not execution time of any one query,
> maybe we can continue to work with something close to what we've
> traditionally done.
Did anybody propose that?
I was under the impression that PostgreSQL's cost model tries to
estimate and optimize execution time, not resource consumption.
Changing that would be pretty radical. For example, it would be
quite obvious that we'd have to disable parallel query by default.
But perhaps I misunderstood, or perhaps I am just too conservative.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-10-06 05:53:05 | Re: Should we update the random_page_cost default value? |
| Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2025-10-06 05:34:53 | Re: Should we update the random_page_cost default value? |