"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 10:29:14PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> The reason the default is currently 10 is just conservatism: it was >> already an order of magnitude better than what it replaced (a *single* >> representative value) and I didn't feel I had the evidence to justify >> higher values. It's become clear that the default ought to be higher, >> but I've still got no good fix on a more reasonable default. 100 might >> be too much, or then again maybe not. > Is the only downside to a large value planning speed? It seems it would > be hard to bloat that too much, except in cases where people are > striving for millisecond response times, and those folks had better know > enough about tuning to be able to adjust the stats target... It would be nice to have some *evidence*, not unsupported handwaving. regards, tom lane
