Re: performance question (something to do w/ parameterized

Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeffrey Tenny <jeffrey(dot)tenny(at)comcast(dot)net> writes:
>> I tried the seqscan disabling and got what sounds like the desired plan:
>> Sort (cost=54900.62..54940.29 rows=1587 width=16) (actual time=20.208..22.138 rows=677 loops=1)
>> Sort Key: f, c
>> -> Index Scan using x_f_idx, x_f_idx, ...
>> (cost=0.00..54056.96 rows=1587 width=16) (actual time=1.048..15.598 rows=677 loops=1)
>> Index Cond: ((f = 1) OR (f = 2) OR (f = 3) ....
>
> Hm, vs 35000 or so estimates for the slower plans. My recommendation
> would be to decrease random_page_cost to 2 or so, instead of the brute
> force disable-seqscans approach.

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?
1? .5?

Just curious:
Has anybody ever done an exercise that generates postgresql defaults that are customized based on the
cpu, memory, architecture, bus speeds, etc?
These old PIII xeons are quite a bit different than the newer AMD chips I use for postgres,
and the tuning of the postgresql.conf parameters has been very effective in using the old xeons, but it seems like there
must be a general knowledge base of what's generically more appropriate for some types of hardware
that would give people
better initial defaults for a given platform. I know, step right up and do it :-)

Here's the postgresql defaults and actual settings I used for all tests today (from my production server):

> I've already had to tune the server to account for the fact that
> the database is easily cached in memory but the processors are slow. (PIII 550Mhz Xeons)
> I've lowered the cost of random pages and raised the cost of per-row processing
> as follows (where the configuration defaults are also noted):
>
> # - Planner Cost Constants -
>
> #JDT: default effective_cache_size = 1000 # typically 8KB each
> effective_cache_size = 50000 # typically 8KB each
> #JDT: default: random_page_cost = 4 # units are one sequential page fetch cost
> random_page_cost = 2 # units are one sequential page fetch cost
> #JDT: default: cpu_tuple_cost = 0.01 # (same)
> cpu_tuple_cost = 0.10 # (same)
> #cpu_index_tuple_cost = 0.001 # (same)
> #JDT: default: cpu_operator_cost = 0.0025 # (same)
> cpu_operator_cost = 0.025 # (same)