From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Roberto Cornacchia <rcorna(at)tin(dot)it> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Top N queries and disbursion |
Date: | 1999-10-08 14:24:43 |
Message-ID: | 2975.939392683@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Roberto Cornacchia <rcorna(at)tin(dot)it> writes:
>>>> 1/disbursion is a lower bound on the number of values, but it wouldn't
>>>> be a good estimate unless you had reason to think that the values were
>>>> pretty evenly distributed.
> Thank you, Tom and Bruce.
> This is not a good news for us :-(. In any case, is 1/disbursion the
> best estimate we can have by now, even if not optimal?
I don't have a better idea right at the moment. I'm open to the idea
that VACUUM should compute more or different statistics, though ---
as long as it doesn't slow things down too much. (How much is too much
would probably depend on how much win the new stats would provide for
normal query-planning. For example, I'd resist making two passes over
the table during VACUUM ANALYZE, but I wouldn't rule it out completely;
you could sell me on it if the advantages were great enough.)
Hey, you guys are the researchers ... give us a better approach to
keeping table statistics ;-)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-10-08 14:29:46 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Top N queries and disbursion |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 1999-10-08 14:05:18 | Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #4 (come and join) |