From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | James Finnerty <jfinnert(at)amazon(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: postgres_fdw: using TABLESAMPLE to collect remote sample |
Date: | 2022-12-31 04:42:24 |
Message-ID: | 951485.1672461744@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> After thinking about it a bit more I decided to rip out the 10% sampling
> rate inflation.
+1. I'm not sure if there's anything more we need to do there, but
that didn't seem like that was it.
I notice that the committed patch still has a reference to that hack
though:
+ * Ensure the sampling rate is between 0.0 and 1.0, even after the
+ * 10% adjustment above. (Clamping to 0.0 is just paranoia.)
Clamping still seems like a wise idea, but the comment is just
confusing now.
Also, I wonder if there is any possibility of ANALYZE failing
with
ERROR: TABLESAMPLE clause can only be applied to tables and materialized views
I think the patch avoids that, but only accidentally, because
reltuples will be 0 or -1 for a view. Maybe it'd be a good
idea to pull back relkind along with reltuples, and check
that too?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | jian he | 2022-12-31 05:09:10 | Re: Infinite Interval |
Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-12-31 03:58:04 | Re: [PATCH] random_normal function |