> I agreed that there is no way to get accurate estimation for
> # of rows to be seen by a query...
> Well, let's keep up-to-date # of rows present in relation:
> in any case a query will have to read them and this is what
> we need to estimate cost of simple scans, as for costs of
> joins - now way, currently(?) -:(
>
> But please remember that there is another SCC goal -
> faster catalog access...
I want to index access more cache entries on cache miss for 7.0.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
