| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good |
| Date: | 2013-12-10 20:17:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZRP_NTXKjZTJ956nzY8zgSXEeT-GBSYsHdhbqJbTHW1oQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> But I don't really think this is the right way to go about this.
> Research papers are going to turn up pretty specialized solutions that
> are probably patented. We don't even have the basic understanding we
> need. I suspect a basic textbook chapter on multistage sampling will
> discuss at least the standard techniques.
I agree that looking for information on block level sampling
specifically, and its impact on estimation quality is likely to not
turn up very much, and whatever it does turn up will have patent
issues.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-12-10 20:19:14 | Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-12-10 20:00:49 | Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good |