Hi,
On 02/26/2016 04:32 AM, Mark Dilger wrote:
On Feb 25, 2016, at 4:59 PM, Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
...
The culprit here is that the two columns are not independent, but
are (rather strongly) correlated due to the way you've generated
the data.
Yes, that was intentional. Your formula is exactly correct, so far as
i can tell, for completely uncorrelated data. I don't have any tables
with completely uncorrelated data, and was therefore interested in
what happens when the data is correlated and your patch is applied.
BTW, the whole reason I responded to your post is that I think I would like
to have your changes in the code base. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate
here, to see if there is room for any improvement.
Sure, that's how I understood it. I just wanted to point out the
correlation, as that might not have been obvious to others.
Thanks for the patch submission. I hope my effort to review it is on
the whole more helpful than harmful.
Thanks for the feedback!
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
