Re: Overhauling GUCS

"Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:

> Where analyze does systematically fall down is with databases over 500GB in
> size, but that's not a function of d_s_t but rather of our tiny sample size.


n_distinct. For that Josh is right, we *would* need a sample size proportional
to the whole data set which would practically require us to scan the whole
table (and have a technique for summarizing the results in a nearly constant
sized data structure).