Re: -HEAD planner issue wrt hash_joins on dbt3 ?
От | Matteo Beccati |
---|---|
Тема | Re: -HEAD planner issue wrt hash_joins on dbt3 ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 450EBF50.7050402@beccati.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: -HEAD planner issue wrt hash_joins on dbt3 ? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: -HEAD planner issue wrt hash_joins on dbt3 ?
Re: -HEAD planner issue wrt hash_joins on dbt3 ? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane ha scritto: > Matteo Beccati <php@beccati.com> writes: >> I cannot see anything bad by using something like that: >> if (histogram is large/representative enough) > > Well, the question is exactly what is "large enough"? I feel a bit > uncomfortable about applying the idea to a histogram with only 10 > entries (especially if we ignore two of 'em). With 100 or more, > it sounds all right. What's the breakpoint? Yes, I think 100-200 could be a good breakpoint. I don't actually know what is the current usage of SET STATISTICS, I usually set it to 1000 for columns which need more precise selectivity. The breakpoint could be set even higher (500?) so there is space to increase statistics without enabling the histogram check, but I don't feel very comfortable though suggesting this kind of possibly undocumented side effect... Best ragards -- Matteo Beccati http://phpadsnew.com http://phppgads.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: