Re: Thinking About Correlated Columns (again) - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Craig James
Subject Re: Thinking About Correlated Columns (again)
Date
Msg-id CAFwQ8rfJ080kDH-SmTCaNk2iqmTZfYRdv++89yE93T+nikDy4g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Thinking About Correlated Columns (again)  (Gavin Flower <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz>)
List pgsql-performance


On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Gavin Flower <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz> wrote:
On 16/05/13 04:23, Craig James wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Shaun Thomas <sthomas@optionshouse.com> wrote:
[Inefficient plans for correlated columns] has been a pain point for quite a while. While we've had several discussions in the area, it always seems to just kinda trail off and eventually vanish every time it comes up.

[...]

It's a very hard problem.  There's no way you can keep statistics about all possible correlations since the number of possibilities is O(N^2) with the number of columns.
Actually far worse: N!/(N - K)!K! summed over K=1...N, assuming the order of columns in the correlation is unimportant (otherwise it is N factorial) - based on my hazy recollection of the relevant maths...

Right ... I was only thinking of combinations for two columns.

Craig
 

[...]

Cheers,
Gavin


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Kellerer
Date:
Subject: Re: Thinking About Correlated Columns (again)
Next
From: Andrea Suisani
Date:
Subject: Re: [OT] linux 3.10 kernel will improve ipc,sysv semaphore scalability