From: | Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Super Optimizing Postgres |
Date: | 2001-11-16 23:47:47 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSO.4.10.10111161846060.23456-100000@spider.pilosoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, mlw wrote:
> Sequential and random read test, these are a no brainer.
>
> The cpu costs are not so easy. I don't have a very good idea about what they
> "really" mean. I have a guess, but not enough to make a benchmark routine.
>
> If someone who REALLY knows could detail a test routine for each of the cpu
> cost types. I could write a program that will spit out what the numbers should
> be.
>
> I envision:
>
> pgprofile /u01/postgres/test.file
>
> And that would output something like:
>
> random_page_cost = 2
> cpu_tuple_cost = 0.00344
> cpu_index_tuple_cost = 0.00234
> cpu_operator_cost = 0.00082
Actually, it could be done if the 'EXPLAIN EXACTLY' was implemented. Such
a command would give you same output as explain plus precise timings each
step took. Idea was floated in the list awhile ago. I think the problem
with it was properly separating borders of queries, but still, it'd cool
-alex
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-17 00:53:43 | TOAST performance (was Re: [GENERAL] Delete Performance) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-16 23:45:44 | Re: Super Optimizing Postgres |