> * Isn't "X >> Y" equivalent to "network_scan_first(X) < Y AND
> network_scan_last(X) > Y"? Or at least close enough for selectivity
> estimation purposes? Pardon my ignorance - I'm not too familiar with the
> inet datatype - but how about just calling scalarineqsel for both bounds?
Actually, "X >> Y" is equivalent to
network_scan_first(X) <= network_host(Y) AND
network_scan_last(X) >= network_host(Y) AND
network_masklen(X) < network_masklen(X)
but we do not have statistics for neither network_scan_last(X)
nor network_masklen(X). I tried to find a solution based on
the implementation of the operators.
> * inet_mcv_join_selec() is O(n^2) where n is the number of entries in the
> MCV lists. With the max statistics target of 10000, a worst case query on
> my laptop took about 15 seconds to plan. Maybe that's acceptable, but you
> went through some trouble to make planning of MCV vs histogram faster, by
> the log2 method to compare only some values, so I wonder why you didn't do
> the same for the MCV vs MCV case?
It was like that in the previous versions. It was causing worse
estimation, but I was trying to reduce both sides of the lists. It
works slightly better when only the left hand side of the list is
reduced. Attached version works like that.
> * A few typos: lenght -> length.
Fixed.
Thank you for looking at it.
