On Fri, May 22, 2009 2:41 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com> writes:
>> No, the 10 to 100 was supported by years of people working in the
>> field who routinely did that adjustment (and >100) and saw great
>> gains. Also, as the one who originally started the push to 100, my
>> original goal was to get it over the "magic 99" bump, at which the
>> planner started acting very differently.
>
> That particular issue is gone anyway.
>
> I'm not in a big hurry to revert this change either, but I think
> Jignesh's results are sufficient reason to take a closer look at
> the decision.
>
We also need more data points just about this test. Does the behaviour
hold for other platforms, and what is the relationship between stats
target and timings (is it linear or is there a sudden jump at some level)?
cheers
andrew
