Neil Conway wrote:
On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 08:42, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Now I'm reading an article, written by the same author that ispired the magic "300"
on analyze.c, about "Self-tuning Histograms". If this is implemented, I understood
we can take rid of "vacuum analyze" for mantain up to date th
On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 08:42, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> Now I'm reading an article, written by the same author that ispired the magic "300"
> on analyze.c, about "Self-tuning Histograms". If this is implemented, I understood
> we can take rid of "vacuum analyze" for mantain up to date the statistics.
Tom Lane wrote:
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
No, actually the stats table keeps the n most common values and their
frequency (usually in percentage). So really a target of 2 ought to be enough
for boolean values. In fact that's all I see in pg_statistic; I'm assuming
there's a full his
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Josh Berkus wrote:
| Gaetano,
|
|
|>don't you think the best statistic target for a boolean
|>column is something like 2? Or in general the is useless
|>have a statistics target > data type cardinality ?
|
|
| It depends, really, on the proportionality
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, actually the stats table keeps the n most common values and their
> frequency (usually in percentage). So really a target of 2 ought to be enough
> for boolean values. In fact that's all I see in pg_statistic; I'm assuming
> there's a full histogram s
Gaetano,
> don't you think the best statistic target for a boolean
> column is something like 2? Or in general the is useless
> have a statistics target > data type cardinality ?
It depends, really, on the proportionality of the boolean values; if they're
about equal, I certainly wouldn't raise
> Gaetano,
>
> > don't you think the best statistic target for a boolean
> > column is something like 2? Or in general the is useless
> > have a statistics target > data type cardinality ?
>
> It depends, really, on the proportionality of the boolean values; if they're
> about equal, I certain
