Re: Super Optimizing Postgres

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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