On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 22:59 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> This seems to be coming from the selectivity estimation function. The
> selectivity function for <@ is scalargtsel, which is usually used for
> scalar > and >=. That doesn't seem right. But what do we store in the
> statistics for range types in the first place, and what would be the
> right thing to do for selectivity estimation?
I'll have to think more about that, and it depends on the operator. It
seems like an easier problem for "contains a point" than "contains
another range" or "overlaps with another range".
Right now I don't have a very good answer, and even for the "contains a
point" case I'll have to think about the representation in pg_statistic.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
