Re: Multi-column distinctness.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Multi-column distinctness.
Date: 2015-10-20 15:59:33
Message-ID: 33010.1445356773@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Tomas Vondra
> <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> ISTM that we could use COLLECT STATISTICS instead of ADD STATISTICS, and
>>>> use REMOVE STATISTICS instead of DROP STATISTICS. That way we can use
>>>> ALTER TABLE rather than inventing a new command. 5 minute change...

>> That seems like a neat idea, actually. I'm not sure COLLECT is a good choice
>> as it suggest the statistics is actually built, but that only happens during
>> ANALYZE. But otherwise this seems to solve the issues with keywords and it's
>> quite simple.

> But ADD is no better there. I think ALTER TABLE .. COLLECT STATISTICS
> isn't any worse than ALTER TABLE ... CLUSTER ON index_name. In both
> cases, it means, when you do this operation, do it this way.

> I would suggest that instead of DROP or REMOVE, the opposite should be
> ALTER TABLE .. NO COLLECT STATISTICS.

Why is this an improvement over using already-existing keywords?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message CharSyam 2015-10-20 16:08:19 [PATCH] Typos in comments
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2015-10-20 15:29:32 Re: [PATCH] SQL function to report log message