Gregory Stark wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>
> > "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@connx.com> writes:
> >> I also do not believe that there is any value that will be the right
> >> answer. But a table of data might be useful both for people who want to
> >> toy with altering the values and also for those who want to set the
> >> defaults. I guess that at one time such a table was generated to
> >> produce the initial estimates for default values.
> >
> > Sir, you credit us too much :-(. The actual story is that the current
> > default of 10 was put in when we first implemented stats histograms,
> > replacing code that kept track of only a *single* most common value
> > (and not very well, at that). So it was already a factor of 10 more
> > stats than we had experience with keeping, and accordingly conservatism
> > suggested not boosting the default much past that.
>
> I think that's actually too little credit. The sample size is chosen quite
> carefully based on solid mathematics to provide a specific confidence interval
> estimate for queries covering ranges the size of a whole bucket.
>
> The actual number of buckets more of an arbitrary choice. It depends entirely
> on how your data is distributed and how large a range your queries are
> covering. A uniformly distributed data set should only need a single bucket to
> generate good estimates. Less evenly distributed data sets need more.
>
> I wonder actually if there are algorithms for estimating the number of buckets
> needed for a histogram to achieve some measurable goal. That would close the
> loop. It would be much more reassuring to base the size of the sample on solid
> statistics than on hunches.
I have a few thoughts on this. First, people are correct that there is
no perfect default_statistics_target value. This is similar to the
problem with the pre-8.4 max_fsm_pages/max_fsm_relations, for which
there also was never a perfect value. But, if the FSM couldn't store
all the free space, a server log message was issued that recommended
increasing these values; the same is still done for
checkpoint_segments. Is there a way we could emit a server log message
to recommend increasing the statistics targets for specific columns?
Also, is there a way to increase the efficiency of the statistics
targets lookups? I assume the values are already sorted in the
pg_statistic arrays; do we already do a binary lookup on those? Does
that help?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
