"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 09:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The fundamental problem with it was the assumption that different
>> executions of a plan node will have the same timing.  That's not true,
>> in fact not even approximately true. 

> It doesn't make sense to me to claim that the timing is so important
> that we cannot do without it, at the same time as saying it isn't even
> approximately true that is highly variable.

Huh?  What I said was that successive executions of the same plan node
may take considerably different amounts of time, and the proposed
sampling patch failed to handle that situation with acceptable accuracy.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: 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

Reply via email to