Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 09:55:38AM -0800, Ron Mayer wrote:
>
> > I still suspect that the correct way to do it would not be
> > to use the single "correlation", but 2 stats - one for estimating
> > how sequential/random accesses would be; and one for estimating
> > the number of pages that would be hit. I think the existing
> > correlation does well for the first estimate; but for many data
> > sets, poorly for the second type.
>
> Should this be made a TODO? Is there some way we can estimate how much
> this would help without actually building it?
I guess I am confused how we would actually do that or if it is
possible.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
