Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes:
> Describing in those terms illuminates much. While the concepts do suggest 2^N
> worst-case planning cost, my artificial test case showed a rigid 4^N pattern;
> what could explain that?
Well, the point of the 2^N concept is just that adding one more relation
multiplies the planning work by a constant factor. It's useful data
that you find the factor to be about 4, but I wouldn't have expected the
model to tell us that.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
