Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 10:03:31 -0700
From: Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org>
To: Ken Geis <kgeis@speakeasy.org>
Cc: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: bad estimates
Message-ID: <20030829170331.GA51353@perrin.nxad.com>
References: <20030829025109.GD4373@wolff.to> <3F4EBF7E.8020602@speakeasy.org>
	<20030829030156.GF4373@wolff.to> <3F4EC1D0.5010503@speakeasy.org>
	<20030829033818.GA5577@wolff.to> <3F4ECC78.7090502@speakeasy.org>
	<20030829040519.GA5746@wolff.to> <3F4F7A07.30404@speakeasy.org>
	<20030829163613.GA51475@perrin.nxad.com>
	<3F4F85DB.2030402@speakeasy.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3F4F85DB.2030402@speakeasy.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i

> >>I found I'm suffering from an effect detailed in a previous thread titled
> >>
> >>	Does "correlation" mislead the optimizer on large tables?
> >
> >
> >I don't know about large tables, but this is a big problem and
> >something I'm going to spend some time validating later today.  I
> >think Manfred's patch is pretty good and certainly better than where
> >we are but I haven't used it yet to see if it's the magic ticket for
> >many of these index problems.
> 
> I had to dig through a lot of archives to find this.  Is this the patch, 
> from last October?
> 
> http://members.aon.at/pivot/pg/16-correlation.diff
> 
> If so, I'll try it out and report my results.

Same guy, but that patch is pretty out of date and has been replaced
by some newer work that's much better.

From: Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Correlation in cost_index()
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 19:57:12 +0200
Message-ID: <lo97kvkmjatb0ain1e7ad69ccslripcafv@4ax.com>


and


From: Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: [HACKERS] Again on index correlation
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 21:21:14 +0200
Message-ID: <dhd7kvs4niqijnerr9mi38oeih1o7j2s28@4ax.com>


-sc

-- 
Sean Chittenden