Re: Default Stats Revisited

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Default Stats Revisited
Date: 2004-03-11 22:55:31
Message-ID: 200403111755.31689.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thursday 11 March 2004 14:17, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Tom,
>
> > Maybe you should ask on -admin or -general. Personally I thought there
> > wasn't anything to say until someone did some experiments to show
> > whether an indexed-column differential is really worthwhile and what a
> > plausible default value would be. The idea sounds good in the abstract,
> > but will it really help or just be another useless setting?
>
> Yeah, that's our next step, a test.
>
> On Monday, I hope to have comparative stats for a difficult database on
> the 3 solutions (leaving things as-is, raising the general default stats,
> and doing index_stats).

Do you plan on handeling primary key columns differently (since they are
likely to be unique and indexed) ?

Also how will you handle column that are part of expressional indexes (where
foo is true for example) ?

Final thought... I'm a DBA and I think the straight number is simpler, though
could be convinced to go with whichever is higher...

Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-03-11 22:57:45 Re: unsafe floats
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-03-11 22:38:54 Re: unsafe floats