From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, npboley(at)gmail(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: new correlation metric |
Date: | 2008-10-26 20:31:28 |
Message-ID: | 22941.1225053088@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, 2008-10-26 at 12:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We might need to invent some
>> other catalog besides pg_statistic if we want to represent per-index
>> properties like correlation.
> Why can't we just use pg_statistic with the starelid set to the index
> oid?
Well, because pg_statistic is built for per-column stats. You'd have to
invent some value for staattnum, which would be problematic for views
like pg_stats that expect it to join to a valid pg_attribute row;
and you'd have useless columns like stanullfrac and stadistinct.
There's no problem with using pg_statistic for stats that correspond to
individual index columns (and in fact we do that already); but ISTM
the point here is that correlation/ordering is about the index as a
whole, not any one column of it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2008-10-27 00:24:17 | Re: array_agg and array_accum (patch) |
Previous Message | Ian Caulfield | 2008-10-26 20:08:51 | Re: array_agg and array_accum (patch) |