Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 15:54 -0700, Rusty Conover wrote:
>
> > I still think this is a deficiency in the analyze function to not use
> > the operator_class that the index uses when producing statistics for
> > that index.
>
> Agreed, but that isn't the way it works right n
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 15:54 -0700, Rusty Conover wrote:
> I still think this is a deficiency in the analyze function to not use
> the operator_class that the index uses when producing statistics for
> that index.
Agreed, but that isn't the way it works right now, AFAICS. TODO...
--
Simon
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 08:53:28PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 15:16 -0700, Rusty Conover wrote:
>
> > It doesn't appear that ANALYZE uses the specified operator class for
> > producing statistics on an index when that operator class is not the
> > default for the data ty
On Nov 6, 2006, at 3:20 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 14:47 -0700, Rusty Conover wrote:
I just
want the ANALYZE call to use the index's opclass definitions of = and
< if the index is created with a custom operator class that is not
the default for the data type.
Which is exac
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 14:47 -0700, Rusty Conover wrote:
> I just
> want the ANALYZE call to use the index's opclass definitions of = and
> < if the index is created with a custom operator class that is not
> the default for the data type.
Which is exactly what the manual specifically says i
On Nov 6, 2006, at 1:53 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 15:16 -0700, Rusty Conover wrote:
It doesn't appear that ANALYZE uses the specified operator class for
producing statistics on an index when that operator class is not the
default for the data type. This appears to be leadi
On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 15:16 -0700, Rusty Conover wrote:
> It doesn't appear that ANALYZE uses the specified operator class for
> producing statistics on an index when that operator class is not the
> default for the data type. This appears to be leading to poor query
> planning.
> For spee
