Re: Selectivity estimation for inet operators

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Emre Hasegeli <emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com>
Cc: Dilip kumar <dilip(dot)kumar(at)huawei(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>
Subject: Re: Selectivity estimation for inet operators
Date: 2014-08-30 19:17:36
Message-ID: 8887.1409426256@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Emre Hasegeli <emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com> writes:
> I updated the patch to cover semi and anti joins with eqjoinsel_semi().
> I think it is better than returning a constant.

What you did there is utterly unacceptable from a modularity standpoint;
and considering that the values will be nowhere near right, the argument
that "it's better than returning a constant" seems pretty weak. I think
you should just take that out again.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-08-30 19:31:11 Re: Selectivity estimation for inet operators
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-08-30 18:45:59 Re: postgresql latency & bgwriter not doing its job