| From: | "Hakan Kocaman" <hkocam(at)googlemail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Robert Treat" <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Greg Smith" <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Overhauling GUCS |
| Date: | 2008-06-09 21:17:08 |
| Message-ID: | 48ca23600806091417u546f3b6dm6314bc55aaa147f6@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/9/08, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>
> > Where analyze does systematically fall down is with databases over 500GB
> in
> > size, but that's not a function of d_s_t but rather of our tiny sample
> size.
>
>
> n_distinct. For that Josh is right, we *would* need a sample size
> proportional
> to the whole data set which would practically require us to scan the whole
> table (and have a technique for summarizing the results in a nearly
> constant
> sized data structure).
>
>
Hi,
is this (summarizing results in a constant sized data structure) something
which could be achived by Bloom-Filters ?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2008-06/msg00076.php
Kind regards
Hakan Kocaman
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-06-09 23:01:45 | Re: Overhauling GUCS |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-06-09 20:52:20 | Re: pg_dump restore time and Foreign Keys |