Re: Correlation in cost_index() - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Manfred Koizar
Subject Re: Correlation in cost_index()
Date
Msg-id 3mpnpuccoukikseed1e3pedo5t1dfj64cn@4ax.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Correlation in cost_index()  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 02 Oct 2002 18:48:49 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
wrote:
>I don't think it's really a good idea to expect users to pick among
>multiple cost functions

The idea is that PG is shipped with a default representing the best of
our knowledge and users are not encouraged to change it.  When a user
sends a "PG does not use my index" or "Why doesn't it scan
sequentially?" message to one of the support lists, we advise her/him
to set index_cost_algorithm to 3 (or whatever we feel appropriate) and
watch the feedback we get.

We don't risk anything, if the default is the current behaviour.

ServusManfred


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Lamar Owen
Date:
Subject: Re: v7.2.3 - tag'd, packaged ... need it checked ...
Next
From: Manfred Koizar
Date:
Subject: Re: Correlation in cost_index()