Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > 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.
Good. But in any case we'll gain faster access from _shared_ cache.
Vadim
