SEO
vBulletin Search Engine Optimization
| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
04-18-2008, 11:52 AM
| ||||
| ||||
 random_page_cost = 1? Is this advisable? The disks are rather fast (15k iirc) but somehow I don't think they are covered in whatever magic fairy dust it would require for a sequential read to be as fast as a random one. However I could be wrong, are there any circumstances when this is actually going to help performance? ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org      |
|
04-18-2008, 11:52 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: random_page_cost = 1? Alex Stapleton <alexs@advfn.com> writes: > Is this advisable? Only if your database is small enough that you expect it to remain fully cached in RAM. In that case random_page_cost = 1 does in fact describe the performance you expect Postgres to see. People occasionally use values for random_page_cost that are much smaller than physical reality would suggest, but I think this is mainly a workaround for deficiencies elsewhere in the planner cost models. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq |
Linear Mode
