* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> The only real solution, of course, is to acquire cross-column
> statistics, but I don't see that happening in the near future.
That'd be nice, but sounds like alot of work.
> As a short-term hack, I am thinking that the "clamp to size of table"
> part of the rule is overly pessimistic, and that we should consider
> something like "clamp to size of table / 10" instead. The justification
> for this is the thought that you aren't going to bother grouping unless
> it actually reduces the data volume. We have used similar rules in the
I definitely agree with this.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2005-01-28 18:29:10|
|Subject: Re: Group-count estimation statistics|
|Previous:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2005-01-28 17:36:19|
|Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers] Patent issues and 8.1|