Timeline for Autodetect ‘random_page_cost’ vs ‘seq_page_cost’
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 24, 2018 at 8:19 | history | edited | Evan Carroll | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1050 characters in body
|
| Aug 24, 2018 at 8:16 | comment | added | Evan Carroll | Yep, that's a valid point! good catch. @tehnicaorg | |
| Aug 24, 2018 at 8:13 | comment | added | tehnicaorg | Just comparing random vs sequential speeds for choosing the random_page_cost and taking that value directly may not be a good idea, right? Random access to mechanical disk storage is normally much more expensive than four times sequential access. However, a lower default is used (4.0) because the majority of random accesses to disk, such as indexed reads, are assumed to be in cache. The default value can be thought of as modeling random access as 40 times slower than sequential, while expecting 90% of random reads to be cached. (emphasis mine) | |
| Apr 27, 2018 at 9:29 | history | bounty ended | guettli | ||
| Apr 27, 2018 at 9:29 | vote | accept | guettli | ||
| Apr 22, 2018 at 15:09 | comment | added | Evan Carroll | @a_horse_with_no_name typo on the label but that's the right data. | |
| Apr 22, 2018 at 15:08 | history | edited | Evan Carroll | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Apr 22, 2018 at 14:10 | history | edited | Evan Carroll | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Apr 22, 2018 at 5:26 | history | answered | Evan Carroll | CC BY-SA 3.0 |