Re: pg_class.reltuples of brin indexes

From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_class.reltuples of brin indexes
Date: 2018-03-29 05:48:40
Message-ID: CAD21AoAA7+ETUJo=j2L8KAdKF8Q9_5uqwNx6H8rucFm6aRZSBA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:28 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> > I think number of index tuples makes sense, as long as that's what the
>> > costing needs. That is, it's up to the index AM to define it. But it
>> > clearly should not flap like this ...
>>
>> > And it's not just BRIN. This is what I get with a GIN index:
>>
>> Sounds like the same kind of thing we just fixed for SP-GiST :-(
>
> Most likely I modelled the BRIN code after GIN.
>

It's better to create a new index AM that estimates the number of
index tuples, and to update the index stats using that returned value?

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Haribabu Kommi 2018-03-29 05:54:34 Re: [HACKERS] Pluggable storage
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2018-03-29 05:35:47 Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS