Nick Fankhauser wrote:
> Hi again-
>
> I bounced these numbers off of Ray Ontko here at our shop, and he pointed
> out that random page cost is measured in multiples of a sequential page
> fetch. It seems almost impossible that a random fetch would be less
> expensive than a sequential fetch, yet we all seem to be getting results <
> 1. I can't see anything obviously wrong with the script, but something very
> odd is going.
OK, new version at:
ftp://candle.pha.pa.us/pub/postgresql/randcost
What I have done is to take all of the computation stuff out of the
timed loop so only the 'dd' is done in the loop.
I am getting a 1.0 for random pages cost with this new code, but I don't
have much data in the database so it is very possible I have it all
cached. Would others please test it?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
