From 4c0b7bdd5e9d02e1a8fcdb6a8f269ab9daa14d89 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 19:11:52 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] doc:  rewrite random_page_cost description

This removes some of the specifics of how the default was set, and adds
a mention of latency as a reason the value is lower than the storage
hardware might suggest.  It still mentions caching.

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKAnmmK_nSPYr53LobUwQD59a-8U9GEC3XGJ43oaTYJq5nAOkw@mail.gmail.com

Backpatch-through: 13
---
 doc/src/sgml/config.sgml | 30 +++++++++++++++---------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml
index 06d164d372d..33f0e39f008 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml
@@ -5305,24 +5305,24 @@ ANY <replaceable class="parameter">num_sync</replaceable> ( <replaceable class="
        </para>
 
        <para>
-        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.
+        Random access to durable 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 storage,
+        such as indexed reads, are assumed to be in cache.  Also, the
+        latency of network-attached storage tends to reduce the relative
+        overhead of random access.
        </para>
 
        <para>
-        If you believe a 90% cache rate is an incorrect assumption
-        for your workload, you can increase random_page_cost to better
-        reflect the true cost of random storage reads. Correspondingly,
-        if your data is likely to be completely in cache, such as when
-        the database is smaller than the total server memory, decreasing
-        random_page_cost can be appropriate.  Storage that has a low random
-        read cost relative to sequential, e.g., solid-state drives, might
-        also be better modeled with a lower value for random_page_cost,
-        e.g., <literal>1.1</literal>.
+        If you believe caching is less frequent than the default
+        value reflects, and network latency is minimal, you can increase
+        random_page_cost to better reflect the true cost of random storage
+        reads.  Storage that has a higher random read cost relative to
+        sequential, like magnetic disks, might also be better modeled with
+        a higher value for random_page_cost.  Correspondingly, if your data
+        is likely to be completely in cache, such as when the database
+        is smaller than the total server memory, or network latency is
+        high, decreasing random_page_cost might be appropriate.
        </para>
 
        <tip>