Josh Berkus writes:
> Why 10? I'd think we could come up with a slightly less arbitrary number,
Well, it's probably within an order of magnitude of the right thing ;-).
We know we don't want 1, but 100 seems awfully optimistic.
If someone can come up with a more defensible number then I'm all
Tom,
> The only real solution, of course, is to acquire cross-column
> statistics, but I don't see that happening in the near future.
Y'know, that's been on the todo list for a while. Surely someone is inspired
for 8.1/8.2? At least for columns which are indexed together?
> As a short-term
