"Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> So for example we might try resetting the search to the start of the
>> relation with probability 0.01.
> If I understand the heuristic you propose, and my math skill haven't
> eroded too badly from lack of use, every 229 spots considered would
> cause a 90% chance of reset.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I was thinking of was that we'd consider
resetting the search position once, upon entry to fsm_search, and then
search normally thereafter. Some experimentation would be needed to
choose the right probability of course. A number like 0.01 might seem
too small to affect the behavior at all, but that's what we thought
about the btree case too. A very light thumb upon the scales may be
sufficient.
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
