Re: ALTER TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN ... SET DISTINCT

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN ... SET DISTINCT
Date: 2009-04-05 23:56:52
Message-ID: 4802.1238975812@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> * Using an integer is bogus. Use a float4 and forget the weird scaling;
>> it should have exactly the same interpretation as stadistinct, except
>> for 0 meaning "unset" instead of "unknown".

> I have a deep-seated aversion to storing important values as float,

[ shrug... ] Precision is not important for this value: we are not
anywhere near needing more than six significant digits for our
statistical estimates. Range, on the other hand, could be important
when dealing with really large tables. So I'm much more concerned
about whether the definition is too restrictive than about whether
some uninformed person complains about exactness.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2009-04-06 00:52:36 Re: Closing some 8.4 open items
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-04-05 23:52:11 Re: psql \d commands and information_schema