On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> Yeah, I thought about this too, but it seems like overkill for the >> problem at hand, and as you say it's not clear you'd get any benefit >> out of the upper bound anyway. I was thinking of something simpler: >> instead of directly multiplying 0.005 into the selectivity every time >> you find something incomprehensible, keep a count of the number of >> incomprehensible things you saw and at the end multiply by 0.005/N. >> That way more unknown quals look more restrictive than fewer, but >> things only get linearly wacky instead of exponentially wacky. > > clauselist_selectivity could perhaps apply such a heuristic, although > I'm not sure how it could recognize "default" estimates from the various > specific estimators, since they're mostly all different.
Presumably the estimators would need to be modified to provide some information on their level of confidence in their estimate (possibly this could be more general than whether the number is a default or not, though I'm not sure what we'd do with that information). But it may not be necessary to go through that pain if we implement your idea below. > Personally I've not seen all that many practical cases where the > estimator simply hasn't got a clue at all. What's far more commonly > complained of IME is failure to handle *correlated* conditions in > an accurate fashion. Maybe we should just discount the product > selectivity all the time, not only when we think the components are > default estimates. That has something going for it, although off the top of my head I'm not sure exactly what formula would make sense. Presumably we want the overall selectivity estimate to be less than the estimate for individual clause taken individually, but how much less? It doesn't seem right to estimate the selectivity of S_1...S_n as MIN(S_1 ... S_n) / n, because that will give you weird results with things like a = 1 AND a != 2. You might need to divide the estimates into two buckets: those that reduce selectivity by a lot, and those that reduce it only slightly, then multiply the latter bucket and, say, divide through by the cardinality of the former bucket. But the exact details of the math are not obvious to me. I'm talking off the top of my head here, maybe you have a more clear thought as to how this would work? ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
