Re: random_page_cost = 2.0 on Heroku Postgres

From: Peter van Hardenberg <pvh(at)pvh(dot)ca>
To: Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: random_page_cost = 2.0 on Heroku Postgres
Date: 2012-02-12 22:28:27
Message-ID: CAAcg=kV+dKXQWbkcMT-pmYHVNjR1NWXCN86+UL=AWbTenHfzoA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> You'd pretty much need to do large-scale log harvesting combined with samples of query concurrency taken several times per minute.  Even that won't "normalize" things the way you want, though, since all queries are not equal in terms of the amount of data they hit.
>
> Given that, I'd personally take a statistical approach.  Sample query execution times across a large population of servers and over a moderate amount of time.  Then apply common tests of statistical significance.  This is why Heroku has the opportunity to do this in a way that smaller sites could not; they have enough servers to (probably) cancel out any random activity effects.
>

Yes, I think if we could normalize, anonymize, and randomly EXPLAIN
ANALYZE 0.1% of all queries that run on our platform we could look for
bad choices by the planner. I think the potential here could be quite
remarkable.

--
Peter van Hardenberg
San Francisco, California
"Everything was beautiful, and nothing hurt." -- Kurt Vonnegut

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2012-02-12 23:37:14 Re: random_page_cost = 2.0 on Heroku Postgres
Previous Message Joshua Berkus 2012-02-12 20:01:59 Re: random_page_cost = 2.0 on Heroku Postgres