Re: Quick question regarding tablespaces
От | Mike Rylander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Quick question regarding tablespaces |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200407012255.26817.miker@purplefrog.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Quick question regarding tablespaces (Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thursday 01 July 2004 08:54 pm, Gavin Sherry wrote: > On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Mike Rylander wrote: > > On Thursday 01 July 2004 06:43 pm, Gavin Sherry wrote: > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > In this release, unfortunately not. > > > > That't too bad, but it's not that urgent I suppose. > > > > > I had some idea early on of putting rand_page_cost in pg_tablespace and > > > having the planner have access to it for costing. I didn't actually get > > > around to it but. :-( > > > > Well, I haven't looked at the PG source before, but if you have some > > specific design ideas I would be glad to help out. I'm just not sure > > where (or when, with the official release coming (sort of) soon) to > > start, but with some pointers I'll do what I can! > > Well, it wont be in 7.5. Feel free to start looking at how > random_page_cost in cost_index(). I will start looking there. > It might be worthwhile introducing a per > tablespace performance factor so that we could could say that the cost of > fetching an index tuple from tablespace A is half that of fetching an > index tuple from tablespace B. As random_page_cost is tied directly to the performance of a filesystem, my thought was to leave the setting from the config file as a cluster-wide (and default tablespace) setting that would be overridden by a tablespace specific setting... i.e. ALTER TABLESPACE ... SET RANDOM PAGE COST x.x; or even setting a scaling factor that would shift the global random page cost. this scaling factor would be set on all tablespaces and would have a default of 1. Then it could be set lower ( 0.5 means that tablespace is 2 times faster than the default tablespace, or global setting). Is that more what your were thinking? > That idea might not actually turn out to be > a very good one once I look at it closely though. > If the latter is what you were thinking, I tend to agree. But I think a direct setting for each tablespace would be a very big benefit. At least I'm pretty sure I would use it :) --miker > Gavin
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: