| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements |
| Date: | 2009-02-04 18:39:07 |
| Message-ID: | 1233772747.3805.2.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 20:38 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Also, I really think it's a pretty bad idea to make index cost
> estimation depend on the current state of the index's pending list
> --- that state seems far too transient to base plan choices on.
I'm confused by this. Don't we want to base the plan choice on the most
current data, even if it is transient?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-02-04 18:53:37 | Re: LIMIT NULL |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-02-04 18:38:47 | Re: add_path optimization |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-02-04 19:40:03 | Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements |
| Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2009-02-04 16:56:22 | Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements |