On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 05:12:26PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> It's not clear to me what the next action should be on this patch. I
> think Jeff got some feedback from Tom, but was that enough to expect a
> new version to be posted? That was in February; should we now (in late
> September) clo
It's not clear to me what the next action should be on this patch. I
think Jeff got some feedback from Tom, but was that enough to expect a
new version to be posted? That was in February; should we now (in late
September) close this as Returned with Feedback?
--
Álvaro Herreraht
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 7:11 AM Jeff Janes wrote:
> I'm adding it to the commitfest targeting v13. I'm more interested in
> feedback on the conceptual issues rather than stylistic ones, as I would
> probably merge the two functions together before proposing something to
> actually be committed.
Jeff Janes writes:
> Should we be trying to estimate the false positive rate and charging
> cpu_tuple_cost and cpu_operator_cost the IO costs for visiting the table to
> recheck and reject those? I don't think other index types do that, and I'm
> inclined to think the burden should be on the user
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 11:09 AM Jeff Janes wrote:
> I've moved this to the hackers list, and added Teodor and Alexander of the
> bloom extension, as I would like to hear their opinions on the costing.
>
My previous patch had accidentally included a couple lines of a different
thing I was workin
I've moved this to the hackers list, and added Teodor and Alexander of the
bloom extension, as I would like to hear their opinions on the costing.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 4:17 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> It's possible that a good cost model for bloom is so far outside
> genericcostestimate's ideas th
