From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: proposal : cross-column stats |
Date: | 2010-12-13 22:48:15 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTinK3OtAuZ8SHeg-WVqyCi=_C-3G6hhvWacgNhy7@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/12/13 Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>:
> Tomas,
>
>> (a) find out what statistics do we need to collect and how to use it
>> (b) implement a really stupid inefficient solution
>> (c) optimize in iterations, i.e. making it faster, consuming less
>> space etc.
>
> I'll suggest again how to decide *which* columns to cross: whichever
> columns are combined in composite indexes. In version 2, allow the DBA
> to specify combinations.
It's really good idea? Composite index can be created when single
columns are too less unique - (name, surname). DBA specification can
be cheeper. We can set a options for relation? So it can be used.
Pavel
>
> In the unlikely event that correlation could be reduced to a single
> float number, it would be conceivable for each column to have an array
> of correlation stats for every other column where correlation was
> non-random; on most tables (i.e. ones with less than 100 columns) we're
> not talking about that much storage space.
>
> The main cost would be the time spent collecting that info ...
>
> --
> -- Josh Berkus
> PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
> http://www.pgexperts.com
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-13 22:49:06 | Re: hstores in pl/python |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2010-12-13 22:45:36 | Re: proposal : cross-column stats |