| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | <sthomas(at)peak6(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why we don't want hints Was: Slow count(*) again... |
| Date: | 2011-02-10 17:21:51 |
| Message-ID: | 4D53CA4F020000250003A789@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Shaun Thomas <sthomas(at)peak6(dot)com> wrote:
> how difficult would it be to add that syntax to the JOIN
> statement, for example?
Something like this syntax?:
JOIN WITH (correlation_factor=0.3)
Where 1.0 might mean that for each value on the left there was only
one distinct value on the right, and 0.0 would mean that they were
entirely independent? (Just as an off-the-cuff example -- I'm not
at all sure that this makes sense, let alone is the best thing to
specify. I'm trying to get at *syntax* here, not particular knobs.)
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Browne | 2011-02-10 17:25:37 | Re: Why we don't want hints |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-10 17:19:34 | Re: Why we don't want hints Was: Slow count(*) again... |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Browne | 2011-02-10 17:25:37 | Re: Why we don't want hints |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-10 17:19:34 | Re: Why we don't want hints Was: Slow count(*) again... |