Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Exactly. ?It doesn't take many 3-7% slowdowns to add up to being 50% > >> or 100% slower, and that sucks. ?In fact, I'm still not convinced that > >> we were wise to boost default_statistics_target as much as we did. ?I > >> argued for a smaller boost at the time. > > > > Well we don't want to let ourselves be paralyzed by FUD so it was > > important to identify specific concerns and then tackle those > > concerns. Once we identified the worst-case planning cases we profiled > > them and found that the inflection point of the curve was fairly > > clearly above 100 but that there were cases where values below 1,000 > > caused problems. So I'm pretty happy with the evidence-based approach. > > The inflection point of the curve was certainly a good thing for us to > look at but the fact remains that we took a hit on a trivial > benchmark, and we can't afford to take too many of those.
Agreed. If people start wondering if our new major releases are perhaps _slower_ than previous ones, we have lost a huge amount of momentum. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
