| From: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Gregory Stark (as CFM)" <stark(dot)cfm(at)gmail(dot)com>, Egor Rogov <e(dot)rogov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Soumyadeep Chakraborty <soumyadeep2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_stats and range statistics |
| Date: | 2023-11-25 08:57:49 |
| Message-ID: | CACJufxGM427O9SDvHg0a+KNXMrraq0JG+nFzgST8rAjdd62hQQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 7:06 AM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi!
> Additionally, I found that the current patch can't handle infinite
> range bounds and discards information about inclusiveness of range
> bounds. The infinite bounds could be represented as NULL (while I'm
> not sure how good this representation is). Regarding inclusiveness, I
> don't see the possibility to represent them in a reasonable way within
> an array of base types. I also don't feel good about discarding the
> accuracy in the pg_stats view.
>
in range_length_histogram, maybe we can document that when calculating
the length of a range, inclusiveness will be true.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Egor Rogov | 2023-11-25 09:14:24 | Re: pg_stats and range statistics |
| Previous Message | jian he | 2023-11-25 08:28:32 | Re: pg_stats and range statistics |