On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 3:46 PM Hamid Akhtar wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 2:57 PM Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
>
>> On 29/09/2020 11:49, Hamid Akhtar wrote:
>> > So, not actually random replacement here, rather a change with
>> > baserel->allvisfrac taken into consideration (as given belo
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 2:57 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 29/09/2020 11:49, Hamid Akhtar wrote:
> > So, not actually random replacement here, rather a change with
> > baserel->allvisfrac taken into consideration (as given below):
> >
> > index_random_page_cost = Min(spc_seq_page_cost +
On 29/09/2020 11:49, Hamid Akhtar wrote:
So, not actually random replacement here, rather a change with
baserel->allvisfrac taken into consideration (as given below):
index_random_page_cost = Min(spc_seq_page_cost + spc_random_page_cost *
(1.0 - baserel->allvisfrac), spc_random_page_cost);
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 1:08 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 29/09/2020 10:06, Hamid Akhtar wrote:
> > In one of my earlier emails [1], I mentioned that there seems to be a
> > problem with how the cost for index only scans is being calculated.
> > [1]
> >
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-i
On 29/09/2020 10:06, Hamid Akhtar wrote:
In one of my earlier emails [1], I mentioned that there seems to be a
problem with how the cost for index only scans is being calculated.
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANugjhsnh0OBMOYc7qKcC%2BZsVvAXCeF7QiidLuFvg6zmHy1C7A%40mail.gmail.com
My
In one of my earlier emails [1], I mentioned that there seems to be a
problem with how the cost for index only scans is being calculated.
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANugjhsnh0OBMOYc7qKcC%2BZsVvAXCeF7QiidLuFvg6zmHy1C7A%40mail.gmail.com
My concern is that there seems to be a bigger d
