Re: Another email not archived

This email isn't searchable from our archived either but it is in our
archives:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-05/msg01030.php

I might have to stop working through the patch queue until this is
fixed because it is impacting my ability to add TODO items with URLs.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> This email from May 2007 is also not archived --- in fact the entire
> thread is not archived.
>
> This problem is impacting my ability to process the patch queue.
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
> EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
>
> + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

> >From pgsql-general-owner+m114428(at)postgresql(dot)org Thu May 24 22:48:51 2007
> Return-path: <pgsql-general-owner+m114428(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [200.46.204.71])
> by momjian.us (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id l4P2mpw13238
> for <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>; Thu, 24 May 2007 22:48:51 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from localhost (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.182])
> by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76AE59FBFFF;
> Thu, 24 May 2007 23:48:46 -0300 (ADT)
> Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
> by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
> with ESMTP id 51135-06; Thu, 24 May 2007 23:48:35 -0300 (ADT)
> Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [200.46.204.71])
> by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA56D9FBEBA;
> Thu, 24 May 2007 23:48:41 -0300 (ADT)
> Received: from localhost (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.187])
> by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAA479FB93E
> for <pgsql-general-postgresql(dot)org(at)postgresql(dot)org>; Thu, 24 May 2007 23:45:49 -0300 (ADT)
> Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
> by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
> with ESMTP id 93549-06 for <pgsql-general-postgresql(dot)org(at)postgresql(dot)org>;
> Thu, 24 May 2007 23:45:39 -0300 (ADT)
> X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5
> Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
> by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE0079FB76B
> for <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>; Thu, 24 May 2007 23:45:45 -0300 (ADT)
> Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl(at)localhost [127.0.0.1])
> by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l4P2jH9H029663;
> Thu, 24 May 2007 22:45:18 -0400 (EDT)
> To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
> cc: George Pavlov <gpavlov(at)mynewplace(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] index vs. seq scan choice?
> In-Reply-To: <20070525023922(dot)GV4320(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
> References: <8C5B026B51B6854CBE88121DBF097A86C3A30D(at)ehost010-33(dot)exch010(dot)intermedia(dot)net> <27828(dot)1180055291(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> <20070525023922(dot)GV4320(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
> Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
> message dated "Thu, 24 May 2007 22:39:22 -0400"
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 22:45:17 -0400
> Message-ID: <29662(dot)1180061117(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
> X-Mailing-List: pgsql-general
> List-Archive: <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general>
> List-Help: <mailto:majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org?body=help>
> List-Id: <pgsql-general.postgresql.org>
> List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org?body=sub%20pgsql-general>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org?body=unsub%20pgsql-general>
> Precedence: bulk
> Sender: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Status: RO
>
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> (The default statistics target is 10, which is widely considered too
> >> low --- you might find 100 more suitable.)
>
> > Does this mean that we should look into raising the default a bit?
>
> Probably ... the question is to what.
>
> The default of 10 was chosen in our usual spirit of conservatism ---
> and IIRC it was replacing code that tracked only *one* most common
> value, so it was already a factor of 10 better (and more expensive)
> than what was there before. But subsequent history suggests it's
> too small. I'm not sure I want to vote for another 10x increase by
> default, though.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>

>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-www mailing list (pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-www

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +