I wrote:
Andrew Gierth and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk writes:
Tom == Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
Tom and some experiments of my own, but I wonder why we are only
Tom thinking of to_tsvector. Isn't to_tsquery, for example, just
Tom about as expensive? What of other text search
Tom == Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
In the OP, he suggested on the order of 100. Maybe we could just
go with 100.
Tom I'm OK with that in view of 87h9trs0zm@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
Note that the results from that post suggest 100 as a bare minimum,
higher values would be
Andrew Gierth and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk writes:
Tom == Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
In the OP, he suggested on the order of 100. Maybe we could just
go with 100.
Tom I'm OK with that in view of 87h9trs0zm@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
Note that the results from that post suggest
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 09:39:43AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 07:57:27AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at
On 2015-05-01 10:03:01 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Maybe we could just go with 100.
+1
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:03:01AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Andrew did the research to support a higher value, but even 10 should
be an improvement over what we have now.
Yes, I saw that, but I didn't see him
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Andrew did the research to support a higher value, but even 10 should
be an improvement over what we have now.
Yes, I saw that, but I didn't see him recommend an actual number. Can
someone recommend a number now? Tom
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
In the OP, he suggested on the order of 100. Maybe we could just go with
100.
I'm OK with that in view of 87h9trs0zm@news-spur.riddles.org.uk and
some experiments of my own, but I wonder why we are only thinking of
to_tsvector. Isn't to_tsquery,
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 02:40:16PM +, Andrew Gierth wrote:
An issue that comes up regularly on IRC is that text search queries,
especially on relatively modest size tables or for relatively
non-selective words, often
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 07:57:27AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 02:40:16PM +, Andrew Gierth wrote:
An issue that comes up regularly on IRC is that text search queries,
especially on relatively
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 07:57:27AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 02:40:16PM +, Andrew Gierth wrote:
An issue that comes up
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 02:40:16PM +, Andrew Gierth wrote:
An issue that comes up regularly on IRC is that text search queries,
especially on relatively modest size tables or for relatively
non-selective words, often misplan as a seqscan based on the fact that
to_tsvector has procost=1.
Tom == Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
Tom Nyet ... at least not without you actually making that argument,
Tom with numbers, rather than just handwaving. We use 100 for plpgsql
Tom and suchlike functions. I'd be OK with making it 10 just on
Tom general principles, but claiming that
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Andrew Gierth and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk
wrote:
Seq Scan on comments (cost=0.00..2406.18 rows=4140 width=792) (actual
time=0.601..3946.589 rows=4056 loops=1)
Bitmap Heap Scan on comments (cost=204.09..2404.30 rows=4140 width=792)
(actual
An issue that comes up regularly on IRC is that text search queries,
especially on relatively modest size tables or for relatively
non-selective words, often misplan as a seqscan based on the fact that
to_tsvector has procost=1.
Clearly this cost number is ludicrous.
Getting the right cost
Hi,
On 2015-03-11 14:40:16 +, Andrew Gierth wrote:
An issue that comes up regularly on IRC is that text search queries,
especially on relatively modest size tables or for relatively
non-selective words, often misplan as a seqscan based on the fact that
to_tsvector has procost=1.
I've
16 matches
Mail list logo
