Re: Better estimates of index correlation

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Better estimates of index correlation
Date: 2011-03-15 00:27:29
Message-ID: 4D7EB271.70906@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


>> As Heikki says, maybe this wouldn't be an issue at all if we can do it
>> during ANALYZE instead, but I don't know if that works.
>
> I'm not convinced you can get a sufficiently good estimate from a small
> subset of pages.

Note that if this requires VACUUM rather than ANALYZE, it introduces a
problem for data warehousing users, who can go years between vacuums of
their largest tables.

--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-03-15 00:51:44 Re: Better estimates of index correlation
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-03-15 00:00:09 Re: really lazy vacuums?