Thanks for taking a look.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 02:42:57PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think this is a reasonable starting point, although I'm surprised
> that you chose to combine the sub-scores using + rather than Max.
My thinking was that we should consider as many factors as we can in the
score, not just the worst one. If a table has medium bloat and medium
wraparound risk, should it always be lower in priority to something with
large bloat and small wraparound risk? It seems worth exploring. I am
curious why you first thought of Max.
> When I've thought about this problem -- and I can't claim to have
> thought about it very hard -- it's seemed to me that we need to (1)
> somehow normalize everything to somewhat similar units and (2) make
> sure that severe wraparound danger always wins over every other
> consideration, but mild wraparound danger can lose to severe bloat.
Agreed. I need to think about this some more. While I'm optimistic that
we could come up with some sort of normalization framework, I deperately
want to avoid super complicated formulas and GUCs, as those seem like
sure-fire ways of ensuring nothing ever gets committed.
--
nathan
