On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 02:40:16PM +0000, Andrew Gierth wrote: >> An issue that comes up regularly on IRC is that text search queries, >> especially on relatively modest size tables or for relatively >> non-selective words, often misplan as a seqscan based on the fact that >> to_tsvector has procost=1. >> >> Clearly this cost number is ludicrous. >> >> Getting the right cost estimate would obviously mean taking the cost of >> detoasting into account, but even without doing that, there's a strong >> argument that it should be increased to at least the order of 100. >> (With the default cpu_operator_cost that would make each to_tsvector >> call cost 0.25.) >> >> (The guy I was just helping on IRC was seeing a slowdown of 100x from a >> seqscan in a query that selected about 50 rows from about 500.) > > Where are we on setting increasing procost for to_tsvector?
We're waiting for you to commit the patch. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
