On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: >> The size hint I chose is fairly arbitrary. Any suggestions for principled >> alternatives? > > Based on your test results, it doesn't seem like it matters very much > what you put in there, so I'm inclined to think that num_mcelem is > fine. I thought about maybe allowing for a little slop, like > num_mcelem * 10, but maybe the way you did it is better. It's > possible that people will set ridiculously overblown stats targets on > some columns, and that's certainly going to cost something no matter > what we do, but there's no point in making that worse than it has to > be without some clear reason for doing so.
Hearing no further comments, I have committed your patch. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
