> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]

> "Etsuro Fujita" <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > ISTM it would be better to update the text about index cost estimation in
> > indexam.sgml.  Please find attached a patch.
>
> I'm not too thrilled with the proposed patch.  In the first place, I
> don't think it's necessary to address costing of index order-by
> expressions in an introductory explanation.

Agreed.

> In the second, this change
> makes the code less clear, not more so, because it introduces a variable
> indexQuals without showing where you would get that value from.

Agreed.  However, I am concerned about the next comment in the current code:

/*
 * Our generic assumption is that the index pages will be read
 * sequentially, so they cost seq_page_cost each, not random_page_cost.
 * ...

I think this assumption is completely wrong, which has given me a motivation to
propose a patch, though I am missing something.

Thanks,

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

In response to

• Re: Update obsolete text in indexam.sgml at 2012-11-05 18:46:48 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: Update obsolete text in indexam.sgml at 2012-11-07 00:37:00 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Ronan Dunklau	Date: 2012-11-06 08:19:03
	Subject: Re: Arguments to foreign tables?
Previous:	From: Jeff Davis	Date: 2012-11-06 06:10:50
	Subject: Re: Statistics and selectivity estimation for ranges