> Assuming that the threshold > for switching to an indexscan is somewhere around selectivity 0.005 > (I am not certain offhand, but it's in that general area), this cannot > possibly require more than 200 MCV slots, and for most data > distributions it'd be a whole lot less.
Thats a really good point. > Given such an MCV list, the planner will always make the right choice > of whether to do index or seqscan Given that, wouldn't it be smarter to consider a value as an mcv candidate iff it has a density greater than 0.005, rather than having a count greater than 1.5*average? This would allow people to raise the hard mcv limit without having to worry as much about including worthless mcv values... Cheers, Nathan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
