Subject: Re: Overhauling GUCS
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
	Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>,
	Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de>,
	Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
In-Reply-To: <8358.1212797962@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <48409D1E.3070208@agliodbs.com> <29525.1212613052@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<200806061435.01196.peter_e@gmx.net>
	<200806061624.29105.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
	<8358.1212797962@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Command Prompt, Inc.
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:08:11 -0700
Message-Id: <1212800891.14299.35.camel@jd-laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 20:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes:

> Actually, the reason it's still 10 is that the effort expended to get it
> changed has been *ZERO*.  I keep asking for someone to make some
> measurements, do some benchmarking, anything to make a plausible case
> for a specific higher value as being a reasonable place to set it.

> The silence has been deafening.

Not surprising really. It is a simple adjustment to make and it also is
easy to spot when its a problem. However it is not trivial to test for
(in terms of time and effort). I know 10 is wrong and so do you. If you
don't I am curious why I see so many posts from you saying, "Your
estimates are off, what is your default_statistics_target?" with yet
even more responses saying, "Uhh 10." 


Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake