On 03/13/2016 11:09 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 2016-03-13 at 15:24 +0000, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>> On 4 March 2016 at 13:10, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
...
>>>
>>
>> I think that a better formula to use would be
>>
>> reldistinct *= (1 - powl(1 - rel-rows / rel->tuples, rel->tuples /
>> reldistinct)
Attached is a v3 of the patch using this formula instead of the original
one. Interestingly, that apparently reduces the number of regression
tests that get broken to a single one.
I'm not sure whether we need to provide a link to the PDF the formula
comes from - perhaps we should?
I've also repeated the tests for the two tables (dependent and
independent columns), comparing the actual number of groups and
different estimates, and the results look like this (v3 is the formula
used in this patch):
1) independent
| 10 | 50 | 100 | 500 | 1000 | 5000
---------------------------------------------------------
actual | 919 | 3829 | 6244 | 9944 | 10001 | 10001
current | 10 | 50 | 102 | 516 | 1018 | 4996
new (v1) | 973 | 4001 | 6382 | 9897 | 9951 | 9951
new (v3) | 1117 | 3852 | 6229 | 9943 | 10004 | 10004
2) dependent
| 10 | 50 | 100 | 500 | 1000 | 5000
--------------------------------------------------------
actual | 10 | 50 | 100 | 500 | 1000 | 5000
current | 10 | 53 | 105 | 508 | 1016 | 5014
new (v1) | 880 | 4105 | 6472 | 9955 | 10018 | 10018
new (v3) | 807 | 3680 | 6050 | 9916 | 9983 | 9983
I only collected numbers for the new estimator, the other numbers are
just a copy from the previous message. So there might be minor
differences due to slightly different ndistinct estimates etc.
Anyway, the numbers are obviously quite close to the formula from v1 of
the patch, plus the formula gives better estimates when scanning nearly
all rows.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
