| From: | Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)it(dot)is(dot)rice(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: More thoughts about planner's cost estimates |
| Date: | 2006-06-01 21:33:09 |
| Message-ID: | 20060601213309.GL15172@it.is.rice.edu |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh, Greg, and Tom,
I do not know how sensitive the plans will be to the correlation,
but one thought might be to map the histogram X histogram correlation
to a square grid of values. Then you can map them to an integer which
would give you 8 x 8 with binary values, a 5 x 5 with 4 values per
point, or a 4 x 4 with 8 values per point. If close is good enough,
that would be a compact way to store some histogram cross correlation
information.
Ken
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 01:50:26PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Greg, Tom,
>
> ...
> > 2) It isn't even clear what data you're exactly looking for. Certainly
> > "correlation" is just shorthand here and isn't what you're actually
> > looking for.
>
> Actually, I'd think that a correlation number estimate (0 = complete
> uncorrelated, 1 = completely correlated) would be sufficient to improve
> row count estimation significantly, without incurring the vast overhead of
> histogramXhistorgram manipulation.
> ...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2006-06-01 21:45:40 | Re: More thoughts about planner's cost estimates |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-01 21:21:03 | Re: Generalized concept of modules |