Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Thoughts on statistics for continuously advancing columns

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Nathan Boley <npboley(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on statistics for continuously advancing columns
Date: 2009-12-31 18:56:05
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Actually, in the problematic cases, it's interesting to consider the
> following strategy: when scalarineqsel notices that it's being asked for
> a range estimate that's outside the current histogram bounds, first try
> to obtain the actual current max() or min() of the column value --- this
> is something we can get fairly cheaply if there's a btree index on the
> column.  If we can get it, plug it into the histogram, replacing the
> high or low bin boundary.  Then estimate as we currently do.  This would
> work reasonably well as long as re-analyzes happen at a time scale such
> that the histogram doesn't move much overall, ie, the number of
> insertions between analyzes isn't a lot compared to the number of rows
> per bin.  We'd have some linear-in-the-bin-size estimation error because
> the modified last or first bin actually contains more rows than other
> bins, but it would certainly work a lot better than it does now.

I know very little about statistics in general, but your proposal seems
straigth enough for me to understand it, and looks good: +1.


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2009-12-31 19:25:38
Subject: Re: Thoughts on statistics for continuously advancing columns
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2009-12-31 18:44:32
Subject: Re: uintptr_t for Datum

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group