Re: Hints WAS: Index Tuning Features

From: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Mark Woodward <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Hints WAS: Index Tuning Features
Date: 2006-10-12 13:06:35
Message-ID: 20061012130635.GG11723@svana.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 08:50:04AM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
> Not to say this isn't a good idea -- i think it's a great idea. But note that
> it doesn't solve some of the use cases of hints. Consider something like:
>
> WHERE NOT radius_authenticate(suspected_hacker)
>
> or
>
> WHERE NOT verify_pk_signature(document_we_have_no_reason_to_doubt)

We currently construct histograms for data in columns, there's no
particular reason why we can't do the same for functions. In a similar
vein, I don't see a reason why you couldn't enable a stats-gathering
mode where function calls would be instrumented to collect information
about:

- time of execution
- distribution of outputs

Which could then be used by the planner. Or more directly:

CREATE HISTOGRAM FOR FUNCTION verify_pk_signature(documenent)
AS ( true = 99, false = 1 );

(Perhaps DECLARE is the better phrase?).

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2006-10-12 13:17:15 Re: [HACKERS] Database Auditing
Previous Message Greg Stark 2006-10-12 12:50:04 Re: Hints WAS: Index Tuning Features