Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 23:13 +0000, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> It's a good point that we don't want pg_dump to screw up the cluster
>> order, but that's the only use case I've seen this far for disabling
>> sync scans. Even that wouldn't matter much if our estimate for
>> "clusteredness" didn't get screwed up by a table that looks like this:
>> "5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4"
> It doesn't seem like there is any reason for the estimate to get
> confused, but it apparently does. I loaded a test table with a similar
> distribution to your example, and it shows a correlation of about -0.5,
> but it should be as good as something near -1 or +1.
> I am not a statistics expert, but it seems like a better measurement
> would be: "what is the chance that, if the tuples are close together in
> index order, the corresponding heap tuples are close together?".
> The answer to that question in your example is "very likely", so there
> would be no problem.
> Is there a reason we don't do this?
It has been discussed before, but no-one has come up with a good
measurement for that.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Kris Jurka||Date: 2008-01-29 08:34:19|
|Subject: GSSAPI and V2 protocol|
|Previous:||From: Florian Weimer||Date: 2008-01-29 08:10:13|
|Subject: Re: [GENERAL] SHA1 on postgres 8.3|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD||Date: 2008-01-29 09:40:40|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable|
|Previous:||From: Kris Jurka||Date: 2008-01-29 05:09:28|
|Subject: Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable|