Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 09:55:38AM -0800, Ron Mayer wrote: > > > I still suspect that the correct way to do it would not be > > to use the single "correlation", but 2 stats - one for estimating > > how sequential/random accesses would be; and one for estimating > > the number of pages that would be hit. I think the existing > > correlation does well for the first estimate; but for many data > > sets, poorly for the second type. > > Should this be made a TODO? Is there some way we can estimate how much > this would help without actually building it?
I guess I am confused how we would actually do that or if it is possible. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
