"Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)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.
regards, tom lane