Re: Thoughts on statistics for continuously advancing columns
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Thoughts on statistics for continuously advancing columns |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 18031.1262189805@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Thoughts on statistics for continuously advancing columns ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>) |
Ответы |
Re: Thoughts on statistics for continuously advancing columns
Re: Thoughts on statistics for continuously advancing columns Re: Thoughts on statistics for continuously advancing columns |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes: > Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I don't have a better idea at the moment :-( > It's been a while since I've been bitten by this issue -- the last > time was under Sybase. The Sybase suggestion was to either add > "dummy rows" [YUCK!] to set the extreme bounds or to "lie to the > optimizer" by fudging the statistics after each generation. Perhaps > we could do better by adding columns for high and low bounds to > pg_statistic. These would not be set by ANALYZE, but > user-modifiable to cover exactly this problem? NULL would mean > current behavior? Well, the problem Josh has got is exactly that a constant high bound doesn't work. What I'm wondering about is why he finds that re-running ANALYZE isn't an acceptable solution. It's supposed to be a reasonably cheap thing to do. I think the cleanest solution to this would be to make ANALYZE cheaper, perhaps by finding some way for it to work incrementally. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: