[postgis-devel] Execution Cost

[Kevin Neufeld]

I agree.  I know it's caused some issues in the past.  I was going to set up a testing environment with a common dataset 
(ie. tiger) to come up with a relative cost per function.  Then all we would need to do is scale the costs 
appropriately.  However, my spare time is disappearing faster than dust on a windy day :)  I do think it's a good idea 
though.

-- Kevin

Obe, Regina wrote:
> We should think about it.  For B) geometry functions should in general
> have higher cost.  So I think a cost of 100 is better than 1.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: postgis-devel-bounces at postgis.refractions.net
> [mailto:postgis-devel-bounces at postgis.refractions.net] On Behalf Of Paul
> Ramsey
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 2:22 PM
> To: PostGIS Development Discussion
> Subject: [postgis-devel] Execution Cost
> 
> (a) Should we be looking at setting explicit costs onto our functions
> as part of the 1.4 release?
> (b) By defining our (ST_Intersects, etc) wrappers as 'SQL' language
> have we harmed our helped ourselves? (Non-C functions are given
> autocost of 100, C functions get autocost of 1.)
> 
> P.
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
> -----------------------------------------
> The substance of this message, including any attachments, may be
> confidential, legally privileged and/or exempt from disclosure
> pursuant to Massachusetts law. It is intended
> solely for the addressee. If you received this in error, please
> contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel