> On 29 Mar 2020, at 17:27, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 10:22:25AM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 at 13:18, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>>> OK, I've pushed that with your recommendation for that function name.
>>
>> Does this now complete everything that you wanted
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 10:22:25AM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 at 13:18, Dean Rasheed wrote:
OK, I've pushed that with your recommendation for that function name.
Does this now complete everything that you wanted to do for functional
dependency stats for PG13? Re-reading
On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 at 13:18, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>
> OK, I've pushed that with your recommendation for that function name.
>
Does this now complete everything that you wanted to do for functional
dependency stats for PG13? Re-reading the thread, I couldn't see
anything else that needed looking
On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 00:28, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> Seems OK to me.
>
> I'd perhaps name deps_clauselist_selectivity differently, it's a bit too
> similar to dependencies_clauselist_selectivity. Perhaps something like
> clauselist_apply_dependencies? But that's a minor detail.
>
OK, I've
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 07:53:39PM +, Dean Rasheed wrote:
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 at 00:29, Tomas Vondra wrote:
OK, I took a look. I think from the correctness POV the patch is OK, but
I think the dependencies_clauselist_selectivity() function now got a bit
too complex. I've been able to
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 at 00:29, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> OK, I took a look. I think from the correctness POV the patch is OK, but
> I think the dependencies_clauselist_selectivity() function now got a bit
> too complex. I've been able to parse it now, but I'm sure I'll have
> trouble in the future
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 04:37:06PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 12:42:52PM +, Dean Rasheed wrote:
On Sat, 14 Mar 2020 at 18:45, Tomas Vondra wrote:
I realized there's one more thing that probably needs discussing.
Essentially, these two clause types are the same:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 06:05:17PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 04:14:26PM +, Dean Rasheed wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 15:37, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 12:42:52PM +, Dean Rasheed wrote:
The other thing that I'm still concerned about is the
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 04:14:26PM +, Dean Rasheed wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 15:37, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 12:42:52PM +, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>The other thing that I'm still concerned about is the possibility of
>returning estimates with P(a,b) > P(a) or P(b).
On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 15:37, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 12:42:52PM +, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>
> >The other thing that I'm still concerned about is the possibility of
> >returning estimates with P(a,b) > P(a) or P(b). I think that such a
> >thing becomes much more likely
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 12:42:52PM +, Dean Rasheed wrote:
On Sat, 14 Mar 2020 at 18:45, Tomas Vondra wrote:
I realized there's one more thing that probably needs discussing.
Essentially, these two clause types are the same:
a IN (1, 2, 3)
(a = 1 OR a = 2 OR a = 3)
but with
On Sat, 14 Mar 2020 at 18:45, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> I realized there's one more thing that probably needs discussing.
> Essentially, these two clause types are the same:
>
>a IN (1, 2, 3)
>
>(a = 1 OR a = 2 OR a = 3)
>
> but with 8f321bd1 we only recognize the first one as compatible
Hi,
I realized there's one more thing that probably needs discussing.
Essentially, these two clause types are the same:
a IN (1, 2, 3)
(a = 1 OR a = 2 OR a = 3)
but with 8f321bd1 we only recognize the first one as compatible with
functional dependencies. It was always the case that we
Hi,
I've pushed the first part of the patch, adding ScalarArrayOpExpr as
supported clause for functional dependencies, and then also doing the
same for MCV lists.
As discussed, I'm not going to do anything about the array containment
clauses for PG13, that needs more discussion.
I have a bunch
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 08:42:49AM +, Dean Rasheed wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 at 17:30, Tomas Vondra wrote:
I'm sorry, but I don't see how we could do this for arbitrary clauses. I
think we could do that for clauses that have equality semantics and
reference column values as a whole. So I
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 08:42:49AM +, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 at 17:30, Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm sorry, but I don't see how we could do this for arbitrary clauses. I
> > think we could do that for clauses that have equality semantics and
> > reference column values
On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 at 17:30, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't see how we could do this for arbitrary clauses. I
> think we could do that for clauses that have equality semantics and
> reference column values as a whole. So I think it's possible to do this
> for IN clauses (which is
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:25:41AM +, Dean Rasheed wrote:
[ For the sake of the archives, some of the discussion on the other
thread [1-3] should really have been on this thread. ]
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 18:41, Tomas Vondra wrote:
I think the challenge here is in applying the functional
[ For the sake of the archives, some of the discussion on the other
thread [1-3] should really have been on this thread. ]
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 18:41, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> I think the challenge here is in applying the functional dependency
> computed for the whole array to individual
Hi Pierre,
I've looked at this patch series, hoping to get it close to committable.
Here is a somewhat improved version of the patch series, split into 5
pieces. The first 4 parts are about applying functional dependencies to
ScalarArrayOpExpr clauses. The last part is about doing the same thing
On Sun, Feb 02, 2020 at 10:59:32AM +0100, Pierre Ducroquet wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2020 3:24:46 PM CET Tomas Vondra wrote:
On Sat, Feb 01, 2020 at 08:51:04AM +0100, Pierre Ducroquet wrote:
>Hello
>
>At my current job, we have a lot of multi-tenant databases, thus with
>tables containing
On Saturday, February 1, 2020 3:24:46 PM CET Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 01, 2020 at 08:51:04AM +0100, Pierre Ducroquet wrote:
> >Hello
> >
> >At my current job, we have a lot of multi-tenant databases, thus with
> >tables containing a tenant_id column. Such a column introduces a severe
>
On Sat, Feb 01, 2020 at 08:51:04AM +0100, Pierre Ducroquet wrote:
Hello
At my current job, we have a lot of multi-tenant databases, thus with tables
containing a tenant_id column. Such a column introduces a severe bias in
statistics estimation since any other FK in the next columns is very
Hello
At my current job, we have a lot of multi-tenant databases, thus with tables
containing a tenant_id column. Such a column introduces a severe bias in
statistics estimation since any other FK in the next columns is very likely to
have a functional dependency on the tenant id. We found
24 matches
Mail list logo
