On Mon, 2002-09-09 at 02:13, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > OK, turns out that the loop for sequential scan ran fewer times and was > skewing the numbers. I have a new version at: > > ftp://candle.pha.pa.us/pub/postgresql/randcost > > I get _much_ lower numbers now for random_page_cost.
The current script pulls way more data for Sequential scan than random scan now. Random is pulling a single page (count=1 for dd) with every loop. Sequential does the same number of loops, but pulls count > 1 in each. In effect, sequential is random with more data load -- which explains all of the 0.9's. Rod Taylor ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
