On 2/10/11 9:21 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Shaun Thomas<sthomas@peak6.com> wrote:
>
>> how difficult would it be to add that syntax to the JOIN
>> statement, for example?
>
> Something like this syntax?:
>
> JOIN WITH (correlation_factor=0.3)
>
> Where 1.0 might mean that for each value on the left there was only
> one distinct value on the right, and 0.0 would mean that they were
> entirely independent? (Just as an off-the-cuff example -- I'm not
> at all sure that this makes sense, let alone is the best thing to
> specify. I'm trying to get at *syntax* here, not particular knobs.)
There are two types of problems:
1. The optimizer is imperfect and makes a sub-optimal choice.
2. There is theoretical reasons why it's hard for the optimizer. For example, in a table with 50 columns, there is a
staggeringnumber of possible correlations. An optimizer can't possibly figure this out, but a human might know them
fromthe start. The City/Postal-code correlation is a good example.
For #1, Postgres should never offer any sort of hint mechanism. As many have pointed out, it's far better to spend the
timefixing the optimizer than adding hacks.
For #2, it might make sense to give a designer a way to tell Postgres stuff that it couldn't possibly figure out. But
...not until the problem is clearly defined.
What should happen is that someone writes with an example query, and the community realizes that no amount of
clevernessfrom Postgres could ever solve it (for solid theoretical reasons). Only then, when the problem is clearly
defined,should we talk about solutions and SQL extensions.
Craig
