> 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.
> 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.
In response to
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|