> > That's not what I wrote. My point was that we *should* store the digests > themselves, otherwise we just introduce additional errors into the > estimates, because it discards the weights/frequencies.
Sorry. I meant to write "no reason to *not* store the digests" Em sex, 1 de nov de 2019 às 11:17, Tomas Vondra < tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> escreveu: > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 11:11:13AM -0300, Igor Calabria wrote: > >Yeah, I agree that there's no reason to store the digests themselves and I > >really liked the idea of it being optional. > > That's not what I wrote. My point was that we *should* store the digests > themselves, otherwise we just introduce additional errors into the > estimates, because it discards the weights/frequencies. > > >If it turns out that memory consumption on real workloads is small enough, > >it could eventually be turned on by default. > > > > Maybe, but it's not just about memory consumption. CPU matters too. > > regards > > -- > Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com > PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services >
