Re: Correlation in cost_index()
От | Manfred Koizar |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Correlation in cost_index() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 7fe8jvc4ikh1l53jb5dkaifqs4oc3vi56c@4ax.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Correlation in cost_index() (Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Correlation in cost_index()
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 16:53:48 -0700, Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org> wrote: ># SHOW effective_cache_size ; > effective_cache_size >---------------------- > 4456 >(1 row) Only 35 MB? Are you testing on such a small machine? >The stats are attached && bzip2 compressed. Nothing was attached. Did you upload it to your web site? >> >I can say with pretty high confidence that the patch to use a >> >geometric mean isn't correct >... the problem with your patch was >that it picked an index less often than the current code when there >was low correlation. In cost_index.sxc I get lower estimates for *all* proposed new interpolation methods. Either my C code doesn't implement the same calculations as the spreadsheet, or ... >I manually applied bits of it [...] ... could this explain the unexpected behaviour? I'm currently downloading your dump. Can you post the query you mentioned above? ServusManfred
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: