> From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> "Etsuro Fujita" writes:
> > Agreed. However, I am concerned about the next comment in the current code:
>
> > /*
> > * Our generic assumption is that the index pages will be read
> > * sequentially, so they cost seq_page_cost each, not random_page
"Etsuro Fujita" writes:
> Agreed. However, I am concerned about the next comment in the current code:
> /*
> * Our generic assumption is that the index pages will be read
> * sequentially, so they cost seq_page_cost each, not random_page_cost.
> * ...
> I think this assumption is completely
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> "Etsuro Fujita" writes:
> > ISTM it would be better to update the text about index cost estimation in
> > indexam.sgml. Please find attached a patch.
>
> I'm not too thrilled with the proposed patch. In the first place, I
> don't think it's necessa
"Etsuro Fujita" writes:
> ISTM it would be better to update the text about index cost estimation in
> indexam.sgml. Please find attached a patch.
I'm not too thrilled with the proposed patch. In the first place, I
don't think it's necessary to address costing of index order-by
expressions in an
ISTM it would be better to update the text about index cost estimation in
indexam.sgml. Please find attached a patch.
Thanks,
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
indexam.sgml.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
