From: | "Etsuro Fujita" <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "'PostgreSQL-development'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Update obsolete text in indexam.sgml |
Date: | 2012-11-06 06:39:15 |
Message-ID: | 003701cdbbe9$707a74e0$516f5ea0$@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ronan Dunklau | 2012-11-06 08:19:03 | Re: Arguments to foreign tables? |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2012-11-06 06:10:50 | Re: Statistics and selectivity estimation for ranges |