Re: performance question (something to do w/ parameterized

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeffrey Tenny <jeffrey(dot)tenny(at)comcast(dot)net>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: performance question (something to do w/ parameterized
Date: 2006-05-08 23:37:37
Message-ID: 2731.1147131457@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

Jeffrey Tenny <jeffrey(dot)tenny(at)comcast(dot)net> writes:
> The server was already running with random_page_cost=2 today for all tests, because of
> the mods I've made to improve other problem queries in the past (my settings noted below, and
> before in another msg on this topic).

> So to nail this particular query something additional is required (even lower random_page_cost?).
> What's a good value for slower processors/memory and database in memory?

If you're pretty sure the database will always be RAM-resident, then 1.0
is the theoretically correct value.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Klint Gore 2006-05-09 00:10:19 Re: performance question (something to do w/ parameterized
Previous Message Jeffrey Tenny 2006-05-08 23:35:15 Re: performance question (something to do w/ parameterized

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Klint Gore 2006-05-09 00:10:19 Re: performance question (something to do w/ parameterized
Previous Message Jeffrey Tenny 2006-05-08 23:35:15 Re: performance question (something to do w/ parameterized