Re: Why is DEFAULT_FDW_TUPLE_COST so insanely low?

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why is DEFAULT_FDW_TUPLE_COST so insanely low?
Date: 2023-11-02 01:32:44
Message-ID: CAApHDvpTdor8FufTQoEh0ByCFX+Dm9==BmU7M_xQG0_vADnKTA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 at 11:16, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'd be happy if anyone else would like to try the same experiment to
> see if there's some other value of DEFAULT_FDW_TUPLE_COST that might
> suit better.

No takers on the additional testing so I've pushed the patch that
increases it to 0.2.

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Smith 2023-11-02 01:48:34 Re: add log messages when replication slots become active and inactive (was Re: Is it worth adding ReplicationSlot active_pid to ReplicationSlotPersistentData?)
Previous Message Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) 2023-11-02 00:27:10 RE: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby