From: | Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WIP patch: distinguish selectivity of < from <= and > from >= |
Date: | 2017-07-04 15:32:26 |
Message-ID: | CAGz5QCKTW6YQNe6Ttqj-Zx_W34vmwz5jP_Cs1KC7j7yHriLVxw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Aside from the mind-bendingly-tedious changes in pg_operator.h, the meat
> of the patch is in selfuncs.c's ineq_histogram_selectivity(), which now
> applies a correction for equal values in the cases where we were getting
> it wrong before. While this logic seems experimentally correct (see
> above), I have to admit that I've failed to wrap my brain around exactly
> why it's correct. The arguments that I've constructed so far seem to
> point in the direction of applying the opposite correction, which is
> demonstrably wrong. Perhaps someone whose college statistics class
> wasn't quite so long ago can explain this satisfactorily?
>
I guess that you're referring the last case, i.e.
explain analyze select * from tenk1 where thousand between 10 and 10;
IMHO, following are the things that I've understood.
The predicate internally got translated to predicate A (p >= 10) and
predicate B (p <=10);
In ineq_histogram_selectivity,
For predicate A, hist_selec = p
For predicate B, hist_selec = 1-p
In clauselist_selectivity,
we calculate the selectivity as = ((p) + (1 - p)) - 1= 0, rounded of to 1.0e-10.
After your changes,
In ineq_histogram_selectivity,
For predicate A, hist_selec = p + correction (since, isgt=iseq)
For predicate B, hist_selec = 1-p
In clauselist_selectivity,
we calculate the selectivity as = ((p + correction) + (1 - p)) - 1= correction,
The correction is calculated as = 1 / num_distinct_values = .001.
Since, the thousand column of tenk1 is uniformly distributed, this
turns out to be the exact selectivity. (rows = .001 * 1000 = 10)
Thoughts?
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-07-04 15:50:21 | Re: WIP patch: distinguish selectivity of < from <= and > from >= |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-07-04 14:59:10 | Re: WIP patch: distinguish selectivity of < from <= and > from >= |