Consider the "cities" table I've played around with throughout the
development of this patch:
postgres=# select tablename, attname, n_distinct, correlation from
pg_stats where attname in ('country', 'province', 'city');
tablename | attname | n_distinct | correlation
---+--+--
On Fri, 2014-08-01 at 22:28 -0700, Mike Swanson wrote:
> I'd also argue that the current function basing the logic from
> definition #2 has limited use even when you want to use it for such.
> If you want to generate text for '(decades)s' you'd have to do:
> SELECT extract('year' from date_trunc(
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:11 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen
wrote:
>
> This is a follow-up to the thread at
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4eb5fa1b.1090...@2ndquadrant.com
>
> A quick summary: that thread proposed adding a relation_free_space()
> function to the pageinspect extension.
> Various rev
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I'll post something over the weekend.
Attached is a cumulative pair of patches generated using
git-format-patch. I refer anyone who wants to know how the two parts
fit together to the commit messages of each patch. In passing, I have
added
Attached is a patch that explicitly tracks allocated memory (the blocks,
not the chunks) for each memory context, as well as its children.
This is a prerequisite for memory-bounded HashAgg, which I intend to
submit for the next CF. Hashjoin tracks the tuple sizes that it adds to
the hash table, wh
Greetings,
I took at look at the TODO list and got interested in the possible
optimization of the bcTruelen() function. Read the archived messages about
that subject and decided to see what could be done.
I tested the performance of 5 different versions of bcTruelen().
1. The code as it exists in
I'd definitely replace /arg/argument/. Furthermore I'd avoid the form
"argument 1: something is wrong": the string is likely to end up in
sentences with other colons so I'd rather use "something is wrong at
argument 1".
Is the patch attached better?
Cheers,
-- Daniele
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 1:
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 1:15 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> Great, I'll wait for the patch.
I'll post something over the weekend.
> Do you mean:
>
> a) you don't understand what the patch should look like? or
> b) you don't understand why it's been requested?
>
> If a), I admit I don't remember
On 08/02/2014 08:16 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
Robert, Heikki and maybe Alvaro requested and/or explained this split back in
April. The fact that the would-be first patch was discussed and rejected in
the past does not counter that request. (I
