Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Jun 2, 2009, at 9:41 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> wrote:
>> You're right that the number of significant digits already exceeds the
>> true accuracy of the computation. I think what Robert wants to see is
>> the exact value used in the calc, so the estimates can be checked more
>> thoroughly than is currently possible.
> Bingo.
Uh, the planner's estimate *is* an integer. What was under discussion
(I thought) was showing some fractional digits in the case where EXPLAIN
ANALYZE is outputting a measured row count that is an average over
multiple loops, and therefore isn't necessarily an integer. In that
case the measured value can be considered arbitrarily precise --- though
I think in practice one or two fractional digits would be plenty.
regards, tom lane
