On Jun 2, 2009, at 9:41 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 20:30 -0700, Ron Mayer wrote:
>
>> What I'd find strange about "6.67 rows" in your example is more
>> that on
>> the estimated rows side, it seems to imply an unrealistically
>> precise estimate
>> in the same way that "667 rows" would seem unrealistically precise
>> to me.
>> Maybe rounding to 2 significant digits would reduce confusion?
>
> 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.
...Robert
