From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Cc: | Postgresql General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Idea for the statistics collector |
Date: | 2002-06-21 04:47:18 |
Message-ID: | 16739.1024634838@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> Since it's currently all for collecting statistics on tables, why can't it
> collect another type of statistic, like:
> - How often the estimator gets it wrong?
> [snip]
> Does anyone see any problems with this?
(1) forced overhead on *every* query.
(2) contention to update the same rows of pg_statistic (or wherever you
plan to store this info).
(3) okay, so the estimate was wrong; exactly which of the many
parameters that went into the estimate do you plan to twiddle?
What if it's not the parameter values that are at fault, but the
cost-model equations themselves?
Closed-loop feedback is a great thing when you understand the dynamics
of the system you intend to apply feedback control to. When you don't,
it's a great way to shoot yourself in the foot. Unfortunately I don't
think the PG optimizer falls in the first category at present.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Winter, Wolfgang | 2002-06-21 06:46:32 | timezone incompatibility |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-06-21 04:34:52 | Re: crash problem |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2002-06-21 05:45:46 | Re: What is wrong with hashed index usage? |
Previous Message | Dann Corbit | 2002-06-21 04:02:58 | Re: [GENERAL] Idea for the statistics collector |