...Robert
On Jun 2, 2009, at 10:38 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
On Jun 2, 2009, at 9:41 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com>
wrote:
You're right that the number of significant digits already exceeds
the
true accuracy of the computation. I think what Robert wants to see
is
the exact value used in the calc, so the estimates can be checked
more
thoroughly than is currently possible.
Bingo.
Uh, the planner's estimate *is* an integer. What was under discussion
(I thought) was showing some fractional digits in the case where
EXPLAIN
ANALYZE is outputting a measured row count that is an average over
multiple loops, and therefore isn't necessarily an integer. In that
case the measured value can be considered arbitrarily precise ---
though
I think in practice one or two fractional digits would be plenty.
We're in violent agreement here.
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
