"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 10:29:14PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The reason the default is currently 10 is just conservatism: it was
>> already an order of magnitude better than what it replaced (a *single*
>> representative value) and I didn't feel I had the evidence to justify
>> higher values. It's become clear that the default ought to be higher,
>> but I've still got no good fix on a more reasonable default. 100 might
>> be too much, or then again maybe not.
> Is the only downside to a large value planning speed? It seems it would
> be hard to bloat that too much, except in cases where people are
> striving for millisecond response times, and those folks had better know
> enough about tuning to be able to adjust the stats target...
It would be nice to have some *evidence*, not unsupported handwaving.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
