From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN ... SET DISTINCT |
Date: | 2009-04-06 10:24:30 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070904060324q5813f0ccpe5eab3996d0fdeb5@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> (It's also worth pointing out that the calculations we do with
>> ndistinct are pretty approximations anyway. If the difference between
>> stadistinct = -1 x 10^-6 and stadistinct = -1.4^10-6 is the thing
>> that's determining whether the planner is picking the correct plan on
>> your 4-billion-row table,
>
> No, it's the loss of ability to set stadistinct to -1e-9 or -1e-12 or
> -1e-15 or so that is bothering me. In a table with billions of rows
> that could become important.
>
> Or maybe not; but the real bottom line here is that it is 100% silly to
> use a different representation in this column than is used in the
> underlying stadistinct column. All you accomplish by that is to impose
> on the user the intersection of the accuracy/range limits of the two
> different representations.
Well, I think I was pretty clear about what I was trying to
accomplish. I think there are more people who care about pg_dump
output being diffable than there are who need to set ndistinct more
accurately than 1 ppm and yet not as an integer. Perhaps if any of
those people are reading this thread they could chime in. Otherwise,
I will implement as you propose.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-04-06 10:27:16 | Re: EXPLAIN WITH |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2009-04-06 07:52:59 | Re: EXPLAIN WITH |