| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good |
| Date: | 2013-12-10 21:48:10 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HPq9UHE85H9QrC=8STCEBirsU+qT7czjdD5R9DWm_h5gg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
>> Back in 2005/6, I advocated a block sampling method, as described by
>> Chaudri et al (ref?)
>
> I don't think that anyone believes that not doing block sampling is
> tenable, fwiw. Clearly some type of block sampling would be preferable
> for most or all purposes.
We do block sampling now. But then we select rows from those blocks uniformly.
Incidentally, if you mean Surajit Chaudhuri, he's a Microsoft Research
lead so I would be nervous about anything he's published being
patented by Microsoft.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-10 22:08:47 | Re: stats for network traffic WIP |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-12-10 21:45:29 | Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good |