Re: Another email not archived - Mailing list pgsql-www

This email isn't searchable from our archived either but it is in our
archives:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-05/msg01030.php

I might have to stop working through the patch queue until this is
fixed because it is impacting my ability to add TODO items with URLs.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> This email from May 2007 is also not archived --- in fact the entire
> thread is not archived.
> 
> This problem is impacting my ability to process the patch queue.
> 
> -- 
>   Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
>   EnterpriseDB                             http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
> 
>   + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

> >From pgsql-general-owner+m114428@postgresql.org Thu May 24 22:48:51 2007
> Return-path: <pgsql-general-owner+m114428@postgresql.org>
> Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [200.46.204.71])
>     by momjian.us (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id l4P2mpw13238
>     for <bruce@momjian.us>; Thu, 24 May 2007 22:48:51 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from localhost (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.182])
>     by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76AE59FBFFF;
>     Thu, 24 May 2007 23:48:46 -0300 (ADT)
> Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
>     by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
>     with ESMTP id 51135-06; Thu, 24 May 2007 23:48:35 -0300 (ADT)
> Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [200.46.204.71])
>     by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA56D9FBEBA;
>     Thu, 24 May 2007 23:48:41 -0300 (ADT)
> Received: from localhost (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.187])
>     by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAA479FB93E
>     for <pgsql-general-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>; Thu, 24 May 2007 23:45:49 -0300 (ADT)
> Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
>     by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
>     with ESMTP id 93549-06 for <pgsql-general-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
>     Thu, 24 May 2007 23:45:39 -0300 (ADT)
> X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5
> Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
>     by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE0079FB76B
>     for <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>; Thu, 24 May 2007 23:45:45 -0300 (ADT)
> Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
>     by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l4P2jH9H029663;
>     Thu, 24 May 2007 22:45:18 -0400 (EDT)
> To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
> cc: George Pavlov <gpavlov@mynewplace.com>, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] index vs. seq scan choice? 
> In-Reply-To: <20070525023922.GV4320@alvh.no-ip.org> 
> References: <8C5B026B51B6854CBE88121DBF097A86C3A30D@ehost010-33.exch010.intermedia.net>
<27828.1180055291@sss.pgh.pa.us><20070525023922.GV4320@alvh.no-ip.org>
 
> Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
>     message dated "Thu, 24 May 2007 22:39:22 -0400"
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 22:45:17 -0400
> Message-ID: <29662.1180061117@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
> X-Mailing-List: pgsql-general
> List-Archive: <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general>
> List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=help>
> List-Id: <pgsql-general.postgresql.org>
> List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org>
> List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=sub%20pgsql-general>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-general>
> Precedence: bulk
> Sender: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
> Status: RO
> 
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> (The default statistics target is 10, which is widely considered too
> >> low --- you might find 100 more suitable.)
> 
> > Does this mean that we should look into raising the default a bit?
> 
> Probably ... the question is to what.
> 
> The default of 10 was chosen in our usual spirit of conservatism ---
> and IIRC it was replacing code that tracked only *one* most common
> value, so it was already a factor of 10 better (and more expensive)
> than what was there before.  But subsequent history suggests it's
> too small.  I'm not sure I want to vote for another 10x increase by
> default, though.
> 
>             regards, tom lane
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>        subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
>        message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
> 

> 
> -- 
> Sent via pgsql-www mailing list (pgsql-www@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-www

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +