Re: benchmarking the query planner

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, "jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: benchmarking the query planner
Date: 2008-12-12 18:20:59
Message-ID: 8066.1229106059@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Solutions can also include
> * manual mechanism for setting ndistinct that doesn't keep getting
> overwritten by subsequent ANALYZEs

Hmm, that might actually be the most practical answer for large,
reasonably-static tables. Especially if we expose the "negative
stadistinct" feature to let people specify it as a fraction of table
size.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2008-12-12 18:22:20 Re: benchmarking the query planner
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-12-12 18:18:49 Re: benchmarking the query planner