"Shulgin, Oleksandr" <oleksandr.shulgin@zalando.de> writes: > Yes, I now recall that my actual concern was that sample_cnt may calculate > to 0 due to the latest condition above, but that also implies track_cnt == > 0, and then we have a for loop there which will not run at all due to this, > so I figured we can avoid calculating avgcount and running the loop > altogether with that check. I'm not opposed to changing the condition if > that makes the code easier to understand (or dropping it altogether if > calculating 0/0 is believed to be harmless anyway).
Avoiding intentional zero divides is good. It might happen to work conveniently on your machine, but I wouldn't think it's portable.
Tom,
Thank you for volunteering to review this patch!
Are you waiting on me to produce an updated version with more comments about NULL-handling in the distinct estimator, or do you have something cooking already?
