Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 781009FB6EB
	for <pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 10 May 2007 15:42:50 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 68124-07 for
	<pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 10 May 2007 15:42:50 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5
Received: from floppy.pyrenet.fr (news.pyrenet.fr [194.116.145.2])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E52389FB55D
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 10 May 2007 15:42:49 -0300 (ADT)
Received: by floppy.pyrenet.fr (Postfix, from userid 106)
	id 9E4FA30909; Thu, 10 May 2007 20:42:48 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Lukas Kahwe Smith <smith@pooteeweet.org>
X-Newsgroups: pgsql.hackers
Subject: Re: Planning large IN lists
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:42:40 -0400
Organization: Hub.Org Networking Services
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <464367A0.9010003@pooteeweet.org>
References: <1178821226.6034.63.camel@goldbach>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org
To: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326)
In-Reply-To: <1178821226.6034.63.camel@goldbach>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200705/453
X-Sequence-Number: 103055

Neil Conway wrote:

> Clearly, the current approach is fine when the array is small -- perhaps
> for arrays above a certain number of elements, we could switch to
> randomly sampling array elements, estimating their selectivities, and
> then using that information to infer the estimated selectivity of the
> entire array expression. That seems fairly crude, though: does anyone
> have any better ideas?

Optimizer hints in SQL
/me ducks and runs for cover.

regards,
Lukas