Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 10:56:53PM -0400, Joseph Shraibman wrote:
>>Seeing how small storage for a number type is compared to a text type,
>>and seeing how they tend to be queried on a lot, shouldn't it be
>>reasonable for the default stats number for numerics to be 100 instead
> The problem is not only storage space, but also the optimizer runtime;
> which would have to munge the larger amount of data ... not sure if this
> is critical but enlarging it by default for all numeric columns may not
> be desirable.
I don't think the optimizer run time is that much longer in absolute
terms. The only reason I suggest it is that even experienced postgres
users probably don't think about this often enough
> Anyway ISTM a better rule would be enlarging the default stats number
> for columns that are part of an index, rather than using the datatype.
That has merit too, but I think text fields are queried on and indexed
less and would take up much more room in the stats table.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Mike Rylander||Date: 2004-07-01 23:34:19|
|Subject: Re: Quick question regarding tablespaces|
|Previous:||From: Marc G. Fournier||Date: 2004-07-01 23:24:27|
|Subject: Re: pgFoundry Open For Business|