Ben writes:
> On Oct 28, 2010, at 10:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, having said that: the constant value of the stub contsel
>> function is intended to be small enough to encourage use of an
>> indexscan. Maybe we just need to decrease it a bit more. Have you
>> investigated what the cutover
thanks for the prompt reply.
On Oct 28, 2010, at 10:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 1 - am i wrong in my assessment? is the constant contsel, areasel, etc
>> hurting us?
>
> The stub selectivity functions definitely suck.
i'm taking this as implying that my intuition here is basically right.
>> 2
Ben writes:
> my guess is that it has to do with the selectivity of the @> operator. i've
> looked and noticed that the selectivity functions for @> and other period
> operators are basically stubs, with constant selectivity. my questions are :
> 1 - am i wrong in my assessment? is the const
hello --
i have a largish table (~8 billion rows) which makes use of the temporal period
datatype and gist indexes. i find that query plans are somewhat "unstable" in
that it is often the case that slightly altering a query can result in a change
from using the index (usually via a bitmap scan
