From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrey Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Merging statistics from children instead of re-sampling everything |
Date: | 2022-02-11 21:17:37 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYXTFpPBm3tMLBTAXAY02GCwrpSsAHhjQxDL0RuuWzttA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 11:15 AM Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> You're right maintaining a per-partition samples and merging those might
> solve (or at least reduce) some of the problems, e.g. eliminating most
> of the I/O that'd be needed for sampling. And yeah, it's not entirely
> clear how to merge some of the statistics types (like ndistinct). But
> for a lot of the basic stats it works quite nicely, I think.
It feels like you might in some cases get very different answers.
Let's say you have 1000 partitions. In each of those partitions, there
is a particular value that appears in column X in 50% of the rows.
This value differs for every partition. So you can imagine for example
that in partition 1, X = 1 with probability 50%; in partition 2, X = 2
with probability 50%, etc. There is also a value, let's say 0, which
appears in 0.5% of the rows in every partition. It seems possible that
0 is not an MCV in any partition, or in only some of them, but it
might be more common overall than the #1 MCV of any single partition.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-02-11 21:19:12 | Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2022-02-11 21:11:18 | Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints |