Re: Selectivity estimation for inet operators

From: Emre Hasegeli <emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dilip kumar <dilip(dot)kumar(at)huawei(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>
Subject: Re: Selectivity estimation for inet operators
Date: 2014-08-31 18:00:30
Message-ID: 20140831180030.GC8990@hasegeli-2.local
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> What you did there is utterly unacceptable from a modularity standpoint;
> and considering that the values will be nowhere near right, the argument
> that "it's better than returning a constant" seems pretty weak. I think
> you should just take that out again.

I will try to come up with a better, data type specific implementation
in a week.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-08-31 18:00:36 Re: Built-in binning functions
Previous Message Emre Hasegeli 2014-08-31 17:59:18 Re: Selectivity estimation for inet operators