| From: | Ronan Dunklau <ronan(dot)dunklau(at)aiven(dot)io> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Fix gin index cost estimation |
| Date: | 2022-10-12 07:15:10 |
| Message-ID: | 12071145.O9o76ZdvQC@aivenronan |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > You're right, I was too eager to try to raise the CPU cost proportionnally
to
> > the number of array scans (scalararrayop). I'd really like to understand
where
> > this equation comes from though...
>
> So, what's the latest update here?
Thanks Michael for reviving this thread.
Before proceeding any further with this, I'd like to understand where we
stand. Tom argued my way of charging cost per entry pages visited boils down
to charging per tuple, which I expressed disagreement with.
If we can come to a consensus whether that's a bogus way of thinking about it
I'll proceed with what we agree on.
--
Ronan Dunklau
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2022-10-12 07:15:19 | Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-10-12 07:13:13 | Re: future of serial and identity columns |