Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Bad n_distinct estimation; hacks suggested?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>,Marko Ristola <marko(dot)ristola(at)kolumbus(dot)fi>,pgsql-perform <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bad n_distinct estimation; hacks suggested?
Date: 2005-04-25 15:23:00
Message-ID: 19276.1114442580@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-performance
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> My suggested hack for PostgreSQL is to have an option to *not* sample,
> just to scan the whole table and find n_distinct accurately.
> ...
> What price a single scan of a table, however large, when incorrect
> statistics could force scans and sorts to occur when they aren't
> actually needed ?

It's not just the scan --- you also have to sort, or something like
that, if you want to count distinct values.  I doubt anyone is really
going to consider this a feasible answer for large tables.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Thomas F.O'ConnellDate: 2005-04-25 15:44:24
Subject: Re: pgbench Comparison of 7.4.7 to 8.0.2
Previous:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2005-04-25 14:13:34
Subject: Re: Joel's Performance Issues WAS : Opteron vs Xeon

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dave HeldDate: 2005-04-25 16:15:22
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Bad n_distinct estimation; hacks suggested?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-04-25 15:11:45
Subject: Re: How to make lazy VACUUM of one table run in several transactions ?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group