Hi All.
The NULL element always suprises me in unpleasant ways.. my brain simply
cant really understand the logic, so please let me know if this is
one of the cases where I just should spend way more efforts into fixing
that instead.
I have a table with a null_frac of 0.5 and i have tested
Jesper Krogh jes...@krogh.cc writes:
When something evaluates to null isn't included in the result,
shouldn't the query-planner
then take the null_frac into account when computing the estimate?
The proposed patch seems wrong to me: if we're estimating on the basis
of most-common-value
On 2011-02-17 23:20, Tom Lane wrote:
Jesper Kroghjes...@krogh.cc writes:
When something evaluates to null isn't included in the result,
shouldn't the query-planner
then take the null_frac into account when computing the estimate?
The proposed patch seems wrong to me: if we're estimating on
Jesper Krogh jes...@krogh.cc writes:
On 2011-02-17 23:20, Tom Lane wrote:
The proposed patch seems wrong to me: if we're estimating on the basis
of most-common-value fractions, the null_frac is already accounted for,
because it's not part of the MCV selectivity fractions. IOW, aren't you
Jesper Krogh jes...@krogh.cc writes:
Attached patch tries to align the behaviour
Applied with a bit of editorialization.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
