From: | "chris smith" <dmagick(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
Cc: | "PostgreSQL Performance" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Query using SeqScan instead of IndexScan |
Date: | 2006-04-02 01:32:12 |
Message-ID: | 3c1395330604011732n4cd523c3gf7c1e4c346630aad@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 4/2/06, chris smith <dmagick(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 4/2/06, Jim C. Nasby <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 11:23:37AM +1000, chris smith wrote:
> > > On 4/1/06, Brendan Duddridge <brendan(at)clickspace(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > Hi Jim,
> > > >
> > > > I'm not quite sure what you mean by the correlation of category_id?
> > >
> > > It means how many distinct values does it have (at least that's my
> > > understanding of it ;) ).
> >
> > Your understanding is wrong. :) What you're discussing is n_distinct.
<rant>
It'd be nice if the database developers agreed on what terms meant.
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/myisam-index-statistics.html
The SHOW INDEX statement displays a cardinality value based on N/S,
where N is the number of rows in the table and S is the average value
group size. That ratio yields an approximate number of value groups in
the table.
</rant>
A work colleague found that information a few weeks ago so that's
where my misunderstanding came from - if I'm reading that right they
use n_distinct as their "cardinality" basis.. then again I could be
reading that completely wrong too.
I believe postgres (because it's a lot more standards compliant).. but
sheesh - what a difference!
This week's task - stop reading mysql documentation.
--
Postgresql & php tutorials
http://www.designmagick.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-04-02 04:26:45 | Re: Query using SeqScan instead of IndexScan |
Previous Message | chris smith | 2006-04-02 00:50:44 | Re: Query using SeqScan instead of IndexScan |