Quoting Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 22:55 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Is it intentional that effective_cache_size is a real (as opposed to
integer)? The initial revision of guc.c already has it that way, so it
was probably blindly adapted from the previous adhocke
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Point taken, but I'm inclined to convert it to an integer anyway,
> because that will make the units support much easier. The variable is
> only used in exactly one place anyway, so making sure the calculation
> works right should be easy.
Casting
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is it intentional that effective_cache_size is a real (as opposed
> > to integer)?
>
> Yes --- the planner generally does all that stuff in float arithmetic
> to avoid worrying about overflow.
Point taken, but I'm inclined to conve
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it intentional that effective_cache_size is a real (as opposed to
> integer)?
Yes --- the planner generally does all that stuff in float arithmetic to
avoid worrying about overflow.
regards, tom lane
-
Peter,
Is it intentional that effective_cache_size is a real (as opposed to
integer)? The initial revision of guc.c already has it that way, so it
was probably blindly adapted from the previous adhockery that had all
planner variables be doubles.
I beleive that it's a real because the oth
On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 22:55 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Is it intentional that effective_cache_size is a real (as opposed to
> integer)? The initial revision of guc.c already has it that way, so it
> was probably blindly adapted from the previous adhockery that had all
> planner variables
