> You asked me to re-do the tests I had run to check the GEQO
> threshold.  With today's sources I get these runtimes:
> 
> # Tables:		7	8	9	10	11
> 
> std, with indexes	1.89	2.26	5.41	24.21	90.04
> GEQO, with indexes	3.73	6.98	16.98	43.81*	21.45
> std, no indexes		1.60	1.79	4.78	15.75	84.17
> GEQO, no indexes	3.30	6.04	15.52	18.73	22.35
> 
> So, (a) the number of indexes is still not very relevant,
> and (b) it looks like we oughta kick over to GEQO at 11 tables.
> 
> WHat were we at before?  6 or 8 I think?  Nice job :-)
> 
> 			regards, tom lane
> 
> * That number is obviously out of line ... probably it was
> skewed by some other activity on my system at the time.
> I'm too lazy to repeat the measurement however.
> 

Done.  Thanks for doing the checking.

Doesn't seem like much of an increase, but it is N!, so I guess it is:

	> 6!
	        720
	> 8!
	        40320
	> 11!
	        39916800
	


-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Sun, 7 Mar 1999 07:02:35 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: GEQO threshold results