From: | "Shulgin, Oleksandr" <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: More stable query plans via more predictable column statistics |
Date: | 2016-03-15 15:47:46 |
Message-ID: | CACACo5QapmaafTq8k0Zk0nS6Hx1iHzeQL+1m57-FMm=8mPzeJQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Shulgin, Oleksandr" <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de> writes:
> > Yes, I now recall that my actual concern was that sample_cnt may
> calculate
> > to 0 due to the latest condition above, but that also implies track_cnt
> ==
> > 0, and then we have a for loop there which will not run at all due to
> this,
> > so I figured we can avoid calculating avgcount and running the loop
> > altogether with that check. I'm not opposed to changing the condition if
> > that makes the code easier to understand (or dropping it altogether if
> > calculating 0/0 is believed to be harmless anyway).
>
> Avoiding intentional zero divides is good. It might happen to work
> conveniently on your machine, but I wouldn't think it's portable.
>
Tom,
Thank you for volunteering to review this patch!
Are you waiting on me to produce an updated version with more comments
about NULL-handling in the distinct estimator, or do you have something
cooking already?
--
Regards,
Alex
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-03-15 15:59:06 | Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol |
Previous Message | Shulgin, Oleksandr | 2016-03-15 15:44:59 | Re: Add schema-qualified relnames in constraint error messages. |