"Robert Haas" <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:04 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> The existing sampling mechanism is tied to solid statistics.
>>
>> Sounds great, but its not true. The sample size is not linked to data
>> volume, so how can it possibly give a consistent confidence range?
> It is a pretty well-known mathematical fact that for something like an
> opinion poll your margin of error does not depend on the size of the
> population but only on the size of your sample.
Right. The solid math that Greg referred to concerns how big a sample
we need in order to have good confidence in the histogram results.
It doesn't speak to whether we get good results for ndistinct (or for
most-common-values, though in practice that seems to work fairly well).
AFAICS, marginal enlargements in the sample size aren't going to help
much for ndistinct --- you really need to look at most or all of the
table to be guaranteed anything about that.
But having said that, I have wondered whether we should consider
allowing the sample to grow to fill maintenance_work_mem, rather than
making it a predetermined number of rows. One difficulty is that the
random-sampling code assumes it has a predetermined rowcount target;
I haven't looked at whether that'd be easy to change or whether we'd
need a whole new sampling algorithm.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
