> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Ultimately the only way that we could get the right answer would be if
>> the planner realized that the required rows are concentrated at the end
>> of the table instead of being randomly scattered. This isn't something
>> that is considered at all right now in seqscan cost estimates. I'm not
>> sure offhand whether the existing correlation stats would be of use for
>> it, or whether we'd have to get ANALYZE to gather additional data.
>
> Using the correlation would help, I think, although it may not be the
> best solution possible. At least, if the correlation is zero, you
> could behave as currently, and if the correlation is 1, then you know
> (from the histogram) where in the table the values are.
It seems to me that if the correlation is 0.99[1], and you're
looking for less than 1% of rows, the expected rows may be at the
beginning or at the end of the heap?
Ref:
[1] or even 1, as ANALYZE doesn't sample all the rows?
--
Guillaume Cottenceau, MNC Mobile News Channel SA, an Alcatel-Lucent Company
Av. de la Gare 10, 1003 Lausanne, Switzerland - direct +41 21 317 50 36
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
No comments:
Post a Comment