"Greg Sabino Mullane" <g...@turnstep.com> writes: > No, the 10 to 100 was supported by years of people working in the > field who routinely did that adjustment (and >100) and saw great > gains. Also, as the one who originally started the push to 100, my > original goal was to get it over the "magic 99" bump, at which the > planner started acting very differently.
That particular issue is gone anyway. I'm not in a big hurry to revert this change either, but I think Jignesh's results are sufficient reason to take a closer look at the decision. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers