Greg Smith wrote:
> There are also some severe query plan stability issues with this idea
> beyond this. The idea that your plan might vary based on execution
> latency, that the system load going up can make query plans alter with
> it, is terrifying for a production server.
>
I thought I was clear that it should present some stats to the DBA, not
that it would try to auto-tune? This thread started with a discussion
of appropriate tunings for random page cost vs sequential page cost I
believe,, based on some finger in the air based on total size vs
available disk cache. And it was observed that on systems that have
very large databases but modest hot data, you can perform like a fully
cached system, for much of the time.
I'm just suggesting providing statistical information to the DBA which
will indicate whether the system has 'recently' been behaving like a
system that runs from buffer cache and/or subsystem caches, or one that
runs from disk platters, and what the actual observed latency difference
is. It may well be that this varies with time of day or day of week.
Whether the actual latencies translate directly into the relative costs
is another matter.
