Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Collect frequency statistics for arrays

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Nathan Boley <npboley(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Collect frequency statistics for arrays
Date: 2012-02-29 22:43:56
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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

> 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.  Do you think that
such applications are so common as to justify bloating pg_statistic for
everybody that uses arrays?

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-02-29 22:52:34
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-02-29 22:40:23
Subject: Re: Parameterized-path cost comparisons need some work

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group