Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7DBA632D4A
	for <pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Wed,  4 Feb 2009 14:39:30 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 29398-07-3
	for <pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Wed,  4 Feb 2009 14:39:24 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com
 [209.85.200.171])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6010E632D2B
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Wed,  4 Feb 2009 14:39:12 -0400 (AST)
Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 23so35806wfg.28
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:39:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.142.210.8 with SMTP id i8mr689338wfg.343.1233772750972;
	Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:39:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?10.10.30.141? (204.11.227.33.static.etheric.net
	[204.11.227.33])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 32sm31277wfa.19.2009.02.04.10.39.08
	(version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:39:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>,
	Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>,
	Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <16080.1233625091@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <483FD205.4090904@sigaev.ru> <486BC501.6060605@sigaev.ru>
	<27880.1215810535@sss.pgh.pa.us> <487A6E0C.3090600@sigaev.ru>
	<8993.1216843701@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4888A594.6010102@sigaev.ru>
	<490B07BA.6030109@sigaev.ru> <492F04D9.5070404@enterprisedb.com>
	<4942A137.3000502@sigaev.ru> <1229910966.2285.76.camel@jdavis>
	<49708008.8070109@sigaev.ru> <1232348905.7281.114.camel@jdavis>
	<4974B002.3040202@sigaev.ru> <1232474489.23316.8.camel@jdavis>
	<49770FD4.5030600@sigaev.ru> <1232561271.23793.46.camel@jdavis>
	<497864DC.5080800@sigaev.ru> <4979BAF8.1000501@sigaev.ru>
	<16080.1233625091@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:39:07 -0800
Message-Id: <1233772747.3805.2.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.125 tagged_above=0 required=5
	tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=2.125
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Archive-Number: 200902/192
X-Sequence-Number: 133482

On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 20:38 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Also, I really think it's a pretty bad idea to make index cost
> estimation depend on the current state of the index's pending list
> --- that state seems far too transient to base plan choices on.

I'm confused by this. Don't we want to base the plan choice on the most
current data, even if it is transient?

Regards,
	Jeff Davis