From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: github@jurr.org
Cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Chapter 14.1.1, small typo on costs?
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2020 15:16:13 -0400
Message-ID: <572473.1603653373@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <160362404830.24751.12549386489720350845@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
References: <160362404830.24751.12549386489720350845@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
> I am reading 14.1.1 and at the very end (just before 14.1.2) I see:
> "which shows that the planner thinks that sorting onek by index-scanning is
> about 12% more expensive than sequential-scan-and-sort."
> I feel that 12% is incorrect, but I'm not quite sure. The costs are 268.19
> and 292.65, and that's about 9% more expensive?
No, the comparison this has in mind is 224.79 (the indexscan on onek
in the last plan) versus 200.33 (the sort on onek in the previous plan).
So 12% is about right.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, github@jurr.org, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Chapter 14.1.1, small typo on costs?
In-Reply-To: <572473.1603653373@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox