On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Nathan Boley <npboley(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> I am starting to look at this patch now. I'm wondering exactly why the
>>> decision was made to continue storing btree-style statistics for arrays,
>>> in addition to the new stuff.
>> If I understand you're suggestion, queries of the form
>> SELECT * FROM rel
>> WHERE ARRAY[ 1,2,3,4 ] <= x
>> AND x <=ARRAY[ 1, 2, 3, 1000];
>> would no longer use an index. Is that correct?
> No, just that we'd no longer have statistics relevant to that, and would
> have to fall back on default selectivity assumptions.
Which, currently, would mean queries of that form would typically use
a table scan, right?
> Do you think that
> such applications are so common as to justify bloating pg_statistic for
> everybody that uses arrays?
I have no idea, but it seems like it will be a substantial regression
for the people that are.
What about MCV's? Will those be removed as well?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-02-29 23:10:44|
|Subject: Re: Collect frequency statistics for arrays |
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2012-02-29 23:02:29|
|Subject: Re: pg_upgrade --logfile option documentation|