"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 09:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The fundamental problem with it was the assumption that different
>> executions of a plan node will have the same timing. That's not true,
>> in fact not even approximately true.
> It doesn't make sense to me to claim that the timing is so important
> that we cannot do without it, at the same time as saying it isn't even
> approximately true that is highly variable.
Huh? What I said was that successive executions of the same plan node
may take considerably different amounts of time, and the proposed
sampling patch failed to handle that situation with acceptable accuracy.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-12-19 08:08:56|
|Subject: Re: Insertion to temp table deteriorating over time |
|Previous:||From: Steven Flatt||Date: 2006-12-18 23:06:04|
|Subject: Re: Insertion to temp table deteriorating over time|
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-12-19 04:46:55|
|Subject: Re: effective_cache_size vs units |
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2006-12-19 03:23:59|
|Subject: Re: pg_restore fails with a custom backup file|