Jan Urbański <wulczer@wulczer.org> writes:
> We follow the algorithm as written, the trouble starts when we want to
> output the result. The paper says which items from the D structure
> should be returned when the user asks for items that have frequencies
> higher than a threshold s. What we want to put in the statistics table
> are items accompanied by their frequencies, so we need to do some
> reasoning before we can construct the result.
Well, the estimated frequency is still just f/N. The point is that we
must filter out items with small f values because they're probably
inaccurate --- in particular, anything with f < eN is completely
untrustworthy.
I agree that we currently aren't bothering to determine a specific s
value, but we probably need to do that in order to have a clear
understanding of what we are getting.
The idea that I was toying with is to assume a Zipfian distribution of
the input (with some reasonable parameter), and use that to estimate
what the frequency of the K'th element will be, where K is the target
number of MCV entries or perhaps a bit more. Then use that estimate as
the "s" value, and set e = s/10 or so, and then w = 1/e and continue as
per the paper. If the eventual filtering results in a lot less than the
target number of MCV entries (because the input wasn't so Zipfian), we
lose, but at least we have accurate numbers for the entries we kept.
> I we should definitely prune the table one last time in the very
> probable case that the loop ended in the middle of two regularly
> happening prunes.
The paper doesn't say that you need to do that. I suspect if you work
through the math, you'll find out that the minimum-f filter skips
anything that would have been pruned anyway.
regards, tom lane
