From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "decibel" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, "Itagaki Takahiro" <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: FSM search modes |
Date: | 2009-10-01 18:55:18 |
Message-ID: | 1412.1254423318@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> So for example we might try resetting the search to the start of the
>> relation with probability 0.01.
> If I understand the heuristic you propose, and my math skill haven't
> eroded too badly from lack of use, every 229 spots considered would
> cause a 90% chance of reset.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I was thinking of was that we'd consider
resetting the search position once, upon entry to fsm_search, and then
search normally thereafter. Some experimentation would be needed to
choose the right probability of course. A number like 0.01 might seem
too small to affect the behavior at all, but that's what we thought
about the btree case too. A very light thumb upon the scales may be
sufficient.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2009-10-01 19:05:55 | Re: CommitFest 2009-09, two weeks on |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-10-01 18:36:34 | Re: FSM search modes |