| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| 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 03:33:14 |
| Message-ID: | 9224.1238988794@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2009-04-06 06:28:56 | Re: Solaris getopt_long and PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-04-06 02:40:21 | Re: ALTER TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN ... SET DISTINCT |