>Josh Berkus
> > But possible more error prone. If you crank up the default
statistics
> to
> > 50, but the index default is still 25... OTOH, you could always
have
> the
> > setting of used for index default be whichever is greater... hmmm.
>
> Well, I'm not 100% opposed to a multiplier. I'd
Bruce,
> Do they? We don't create an index automatically when using REFERENCES.
> We do create an index for PRIMARY KEY.
>
> I was just wondering if the REFERENCES column is more sensitive to join
> usage and would benefit from more accurate statistics even if it doesn't
> have an index.
I don'
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Another idea is whether a foreign key column should get extra
> > statistics?
>
> In practice, both ends of an FK relationship have to be indexed,
> so I don't see that we need any extra special case for that.
Do they? We don't crea
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Another idea is whether a foreign key column should get extra
> statistics?
In practice, both ends of an FK relationship have to be indexed,
so I don't see that we need any extra special case for that.
regards, tom lane
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Also how will you handle column that are part of expressional indexes (where
>> foo is true for example) ?
> See my original proposal. These columns will be ignored. Expressions have
> their own stats.
Yeah, I see no particular need to increase the st
Robert,
> Do you plan on handeling primary key columns differently (since they are
> likely to be unique and indexed) ?
The same as any other indexed column.
> Also how will you handle column that are part of expressional indexes (where
> foo is true for example) ?
See my original proposal.
On Thursday 11 March 2004 14:17, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Tom,
>
> > Maybe you should ask on -admin or -general. Personally I thought there
> > wasn't anything to say until someone did some experiments to show
> > whether an indexed-column differential is really worthwhile and what a
> > plausible def
Tom,
> Maybe you should ask on -admin or -general. Personally I thought there
> wasn't anything to say until someone did some experiments to show
> whether an indexed-column differential is really worthwhile and what a
> plausible default value would be. The idea sounds good in the abstract,
> b
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, I'm not 100% opposed to a multiplier. I'd like to take a poll of DBAs
> to find out which they would find more accessable. But since most people
> seem to be ignoring this thread, I'm not sure we'll get much response ...
Maybe you should ask on
Scott,
> But possible more error prone. If you crank up the default statistics to
> 50, but the index default is still 25... OTOH, you could always have the
> setting of used for index default be whichever is greater... hmmm.
Well, I'm not 100% opposed to a multiplier. I'd like to take a po
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Scott,
>
> > I like it. Would a multiplier be acceptable?
> > default_stats_index_multiplier = 10
>
> Yeah, I thought about that, but a multiplier would be harder to manage for
> most people.I mean, what if your default_stats are at 25 and you wa
Scott,
> I like it. Would a multiplier be acceptable?
> default_stats_index_multiplier = 10
Yeah, I thought about that, but a multiplier would be harder to manage for
most people.I mean, what if your default_stats are at 25 and you want
your index_stats at 40? PITA. Also, if you want
12 matches
Mail list logo
