From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good |
Date: | 2013-12-10 23:43:23 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQhd0AUr=R2gUBzsEG0FEqV2zF-xVk0Rsm=SeC-mrVCog@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> wrote:
>> I agree that looking for information on block level sampling
>> specifically, and its impact on estimation quality is likely to not
>> turn up very much, and whatever it does turn up will have patent
>> issues.
>
>
> We have an entire analytics dept. at work that specializes in finding
> patterns in our data. I might be able to get some time from them to at least
> provide some guidance here, if the community is interested. They could
> really only serve in a consulting role though.
I think that Greg had this right several years ago: it would probably
be very useful to have the input of someone with a strong background
in statistics. It doesn't seem that important that they already know a
lot about databases, provided they can understand what our constraints
are, and what is important to us. It might just be a matter of having
them point us in the right direction.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-12-11 00:11:03 | Re: logical changeset generation v6.8 |
Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2013-12-10 23:38:35 | Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO |