Re: Estimating costs (was Functional Indices)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, kavoos <kavoos(at)issn(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Estimating costs (was Functional Indices)
Date: 2001-05-24 02:40:38
Message-ID: 26711.990672038@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> I'm not sure how common this is (long runs in a foreign key column) and it's
> probably not worth it in the general case. So, is there a column in
> pg_statistic where I can twiddle the per-tuple index-scan cost?

You could stick a phony value into the correlation datum.

> I suppose it's unlikely that there will be a VACUUM ANALYZE EVERYTHING?

The current code wants to see sorted samples. You could feed it a
complete sorted input for moderate-sized tables, but this doesn't
sound like a recipe that scales...

> We'd get better results with partial indexes anyway I think.

I'd like to see the partial-index support cranked up again, for sure.
But how does that solve your problem? I don't see the connection.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Diana Cionoiu 2001-05-24 03:05:03 Re: Odd "INSERT" Problems with PostgreSQL - Do YOU know?
Previous Message John 2001-05-24 01:33:46 Re: Cant get Perl Module loaded