Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAM3SWZQDDA2MrFpfCpxM05Ypr0WueejQbbvVNPcXsMKr9KHWWg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good
Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > However, these things presume that we need to continue scanning most > of the blocks of the table, which I don't think needs to be the case. > There is a better way. Do they? I think it's one opportunistic way of ameliorating the cost. > 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. -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: