Re: Why is DEFAULT_FDW_TUPLE_COST so insanely low?

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why is DEFAULT_FDW_TUPLE_COST so insanely low?
Date: 2023-11-02 02:32:06
Message-ID: ZUMKJkk1oD-IhfEX@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 02:32:44PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 at 11:16, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I'd be happy if anyone else would like to try the same experiment to
> > see if there's some other value of DEFAULT_FDW_TUPLE_COST that might
> > suit better.
>
> No takers on the additional testing so I've pushed the patch that
> increases it to 0.2.

Great! Thanks.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

Only you can decide what is important to you.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2023-11-02 02:32:55 Re: Don't pass NULL pointer to strcmp().
Previous Message Xing Guo 2023-11-02 02:09:27 Re: Don't pass NULL pointer to strcmp().