From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org>
Cc: Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Correlation in cost_index()
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 15:32:50 -0400
Message-ID: <29249.1060371170@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030808180656.GL94710@perrin.int.nxad.com>
References: <n6cmpug13b9rk1srebjvhphg0lm8dou1kn@4ax.com>
<29475.1033598929@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20030807204419.GJ94710@perrin.int.nxad.com>
<9452.1060296663@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20030808180656.GL94710@perrin.int.nxad.com>
Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org> writes:
> Which suggests to me that line 3964 in
> ./src/backend/utils/adt/selfuncs.c isn't right for multi-column
> indexes, esp for indexes that are clustered. I don't know how to
> address this though... Tom, any hints?
Yes, we knew that already. Oliver had suggested simply dropping the
division by nKeys, thus pretending that the first-column correlation
is close enough. That seems to me to be going too far in the other
direction, but clearly dividing by nKeys is far too pessimistic.
I'd change this in a moment if someone could point me to a formula
with any basis at all ...
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, sean@chittenden.org, mkoi-pg@aon.at
Subject: Re: Correlation in cost_index()
In-Reply-To: <29249.1060371170@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox