From: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Henry B(dot) Hotz" <hotz(at)jpl(dot)nasa(dot)gov> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates |
Date: | 2000-01-24 19:55:31 |
Message-ID: | 3.0.1.32.20000124115531.01071320@mail.pacifier.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 01:13 PM 1/24/00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>In practice this would be happening at initdb time, not configure time,
>since it'd be a lot easier to do it in C code than in a shell script.
>But that's a detail. I'm still not clear on how you can wave away the
>issue of kernel disk caching --- if you don't use a test file that's
>larger than the disk cache, ISTM you risk getting a number that's
>entirely devoid of any physical I/O at all.
And even the $100 6.4 GB Ultra DMA drive I bought last week has
2MB of cache. hdparm shows me getting 19 mB/second transfers
even though it adjusts for the file system cache. It's only a
5400 RPM disk and I'm certain the on-disk cache is impacting
this number.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Don Baccus | 2000-01-24 20:02:20 | Re: [HACKERS] Well, then you keep your darn columns |
Previous Message | Don Baccus | 2000-01-24 19:53:33 | Re: [HACKERS] Well, then you keep your darn columns |