On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 16:53:48 -0700, Sean Chittenden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
># SHOW effective_cache_size ;
> effective_cache_size
>----------------------
> 4456
>(1 row)
Only 35 MB? Are you testing on such a small machine?
>The stats are attached && bzip2 compressed.
Nothing was attached. Did you upload it to your web site?
>> >I can say with pretty high confidence that the patch to use a
>> >geometric mean isn't correct
>... the problem with your patch was
>that it picked an index less often than the current code when there
>was low correlation.
In cost_index.sxc I get lower estimates for *all* proposed new
interpolation methods. Either my C code doesn't implement the same
calculations as the spreadsheet, or ...
>I manually applied bits of it [...]
... could this explain the unexpected behaviour?
I'm currently downloading your dump. Can you post the query you
mentioned above?
Servus
Manfred
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
