I wrote:
> Andrew Gierth writes:
>> "Tom" == Tom Lane 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 functions?
>> Making the same change for
Andrew Gierth writes:
> "Tom" == Tom Lane 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
> "Tom" == Tom Lane 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 quite r
Robert Haas 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, for example, jus
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 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 a
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Bruce Momjian 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 initially re
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 09:39:43AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Bruce Momjian 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 wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 02:40:16PM +, Andrew G
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Bruce Momjian 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 wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 02:40:16PM +, Andrew Gierth wrote:
>> >> An issue that comes up regularly on IRC is that te
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 07:57:27AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Bruce Momjian 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 siz
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Bruce Momjian 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 misplan as a
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.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Andrew Gierth
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 time=2.401..11.564 rows=4056 loops=1
> "Tom" == Tom Lane 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 it's as ex
On 2015-03-11 12:07:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2015-03-11 14:40:16 +, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> >> ,but even without doing that, there's a strong
> >> argument that it should be increased to at least the order of 100.
>
> Nyet ... at least not without you actually m
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2015-03-11 14:40:16 +, Andrew Gierth wrote:
>> Getting the right cost estimate would obviously mean taking the cost of
>> detoasting into account
> Well, that's not done in other cases where you could either, so there's
> precedence for being inaccurate ;)
If we we
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
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 estima
18 matches
Mail list logo
