Re: [PERFORM] Bad n_distinct estimation; hacks suggested?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Gurmeet Manku <manku(at)cs(dot)stanford(dot)edu>
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Bad n_distinct estimation; hacks suggested?
Date: 2005-04-27 04:14:36
Message-ID: 17677.1114575276@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> writes:
> If when we have partitions, that'll be good enough. If partitions aren't
> available this would be quite painful to anyone with large tables --
> much as the days of old used to be painful for ANALYZE.

Yeah ... I am very un-enthused about these suggestions to make ANALYZE
go back to doing a full scan ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-04-27 04:19:46 Re: Disable large objects GUC
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-04-27 03:22:04 Re: pg_restore stuck in a loop?

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mischa Sandberg 2005-04-27 05:38:04 Re: [HACKERS] Bad n_distinct estimation; hacks suggested?
Previous Message Kevin Brown 2005-04-27 02:46:52 Re: Joel's Performance Issues WAS : Opteron vs Xeon