Re: -HEAD planner issue wrt hash_joins on dbt3 ? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: -HEAD planner issue wrt hash_joins on dbt3 ?
Date
Msg-id 17841.1158781930@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: -HEAD planner issue wrt hash_joins on dbt3 ?  (Matteo Beccati <php@beccati.com>)
Responses Re: -HEAD planner issue wrt hash_joins on dbt3 ?  (Matteo Beccati <php@beccati.com>)
Re: -HEAD planner issue wrt hash_joins on dbt3 ?  (Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>)
Re: -HEAD planner issue wrt hash_joins on dbt3 ?  (Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>)
List pgsql-hackers
Matteo Beccati <php@beccati.com> writes:
> Tom Lane ha scritto:
>> Matteo Beccati <php@beccati.com> writes:
>>> I cannot see anything bad by using something like that:
>>> if (histogram is large/representative enough)
>> 
>> Well, the question is exactly what is "large enough"?  I feel a bit
>> uncomfortable about applying the idea to a histogram with only 10
>> entries (especially if we ignore two of 'em).  With 100 or more,
>> it sounds all right.  What's the breakpoint?

> Yes, I think 100-200 could be a good breakpoint.

I've committed this change with (for now) 100 as the minimum histogram
size to use.  Stefan, are you interested in retrying your benchmark?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade: downgradebility
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: 'configure --disable-shared' and 'make check'