From: Ronan Dunklau <ronan.dunklau@aiven.io>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Fix gin index cost estimation
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 09:15:10 +0200
Message-ID: <12071145.O9o76ZdvQC@aivenronan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y0ZOqzshes0++b1x@paquier.xyz>
References: <3188617.44csPzL39Z@aivenronan>
<4768224.31r3eYUQgx@aivenronan>
<Y0ZOqzshes0++b1x@paquier.xyz>
> > You're right, I was too eager to try to raise the CPU cost proportionnally
to
> > the number of array scans (scalararrayop). I'd really like to understand
where
> > this equation comes from though...
>
> So, what's the latest update here?
Thanks Michael for reviving this thread.
Before proceeding any further with this, I'd like to understand where we
stand. Tom argued my way of charging cost per entry pages visited boils down
to charging per tuple, which I expressed disagreement with.
If we can come to a consensus whether that's a bogus way of thinking about it
I'll proceed with what we agree on.
--
Ronan Dunklau
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-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: ronan.dunklau@aiven.io, michael@paquier.xyz, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Fix gin index cost estimation
In-Reply-To: <12071145.O9o76ZdvQC@aivenronan>
* 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