Re: index vs. seq scan choice? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Steve Atkins
Subject Re: index vs. seq scan choice?
Date
Msg-id 23385219-5252-468A-BBC9-69516DA81C2A@blighty.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: index vs. seq scan choice?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: index vs. seq scan choice?
Re: index vs. seq scan choice?
List pgsql-general
On May 24, 2007, at 8:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I'm not sure I want to vote for another 10x increase by
>>> default, though.
>
>> Outside of longer analyze times, and slightly more space taken up
>> by the
>> statistics, what is the downside?
>
> Longer plan times --- several of the selfuncs.c routines grovel
> over all
> the entries in the pg_statistic row.  AFAIK no one's measured the real
> impact of that, but it could easily be counterproductive for simple
> queries.

The lateness of the hour is suppressing my supposed statistics savvy,
so this may not make sense, but...

Would it be possible to look at a much larger number of samples
during analyze,
then look at the variation in those to generate a reasonable number of
pg_statistic "samples" to represent our estimate of the actual
distribution?
More datapoints for tables where the planner might benefit from it,
fewer
where it wouldn't.

Cheers,
   Steve

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: index vs. seq scan choice?
Next
From: "Michael Harris \(BR/EPA\)"
Date:
Subject: ERROR: cache lookup failed for type 0