Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> [ shrug... ] �Precision is not important for this value: we are not
>> anywhere near needing more than six significant digits for our
>> statistical estimates. �Range, on the other hand, could be important
>> when dealing with really large tables.
> I thought about that, and if you think that's better, I can implement
> it that way. Personally, I'm unconvinced. The use case for
> specifying a number of distinct values in excess of 2 billion as an
> absolute number rather than as a percentage of the table size seems
> pretty weak to me.
I was more concerned about the other end of it. Your patch sets a
not-too-generous lower bound on the percentage that can be represented ...
regards, tom lane
