From: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Group-count estimation statistics |
Date: | 2005-02-01 15:29:30 |
Message-ID: | vh6vv0ds3b61jseji2c3271di2iu203p8p@email.aon.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:40:08 -0500, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> writes:
>> That's not what I meant. I tried to say that if we have a GROUP BY
>> several columns and one of these columns alone has more than N/10
>> distinct values, there's no way to get less than that many groups.
>
>Oh, I see, you want a "max" calculation in there too. Seems reasonable.
>Any objections?
Yes. :-( What I said is only true in the absence of any WHERE clause
(or join). Otherwise the same cross-column correlation issues you tried
to work around with the N/10 clamping might come back through the
backdoor. I'm not sure whether coding for such a narrow use case is
worth the trouble. Forget my idea.
Servus
Manfred
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-02-01 15:37:30 | Re: Our getopt_long() doesn't do abbreviations or NLS |
Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2005-02-01 15:28:08 | Re: 7.2.7 -> 8.0.1 Bundles Ready ... |