On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> * Using an integer is bogus. Use a float4 and forget the weird scaling; >>> it should have exactly the same interpretation as stadistinct, except >>> for 0 meaning "unset" instead of "unknown". > >> I have a deep-seated aversion to storing important values as float, > > [ shrug... ] Precision is not important for this value: we are not > anywhere near needing more than six significant digits for our > statistical estimates. Range, on the other hand, could be important > when dealing with really large tables. So I'm much more concerned > about whether the definition is too restrictive than about whether > some uninformed person complains about exactness.
I thought about that, and if you think that's better, I can implement it that way. Personally, I'm unconvinced. The use case for specifying a number of distinct values in excess of 2 billion as an absolute number rather than as a percentage of the table size seems pretty weak to me. I would rather use integers and have it be clean. But I would rather have it your way than not have it at all. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
