Re: [HACKERS] Better default_statistics_target
On Jun 12, 2008, at 17:55, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: Glad to hear that, although I think this is only in HEAD, not backpatched, right? Well at any rate, I withdraw my strong support for 100 and join in the quest for a good number. The "anything but 10" campaign I vote for 11. That's one louda, in'it? Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Better default_statistics_target
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 > That was a pretty special case (LIKE/regex estimation), and we've since > eliminated the threshold change in the LIKE/regex estimates anyway, so > there's no longer any reason to pick 100 as opposed to any other number. > So we're still back at "what's a good value and why?". Glad to hear that, although I think this is only in HEAD, not backpatched, right? Well at any rate, I withdraw my strong support for 100 and join in the quest for a good number. The "anything but 10" campaign. > I'm still concerned about the fact that eqjoinsel() is O(N^2). Show me > some measurements demonstrating that a deep nest of equijoins doesn't > get noticeably more expensive to plan --- preferably on a datatype with > an expensive equality operator, eg numeric --- and I'm on board. I hope someone else on the list can do this, because I can't. :) - -- Greg Sabino Mullane [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200806122054 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iEYEAREDAAYFAkhRxToACgkQvJuQZxSWSsj0OwCfel+zN/jQth79RvIHtxpUefQD APMAmQEKIDS6BzqUjn4eTMzP9NDlxTbE =JZTe -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
