Alex Shulgin <alex.shul...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Alex Shulgin <alex.shul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure yet about the 1% rule for the last value, but would also love
>> to see if we can avoid the arbitrary limit here. What happens with a last
>> value which is less than 1% popular in the current code anyway?
> Now that I think about it, I don't really believe this arbitrary heuristic
> is any good either, sorry.
Yeah, it was just a placeholder to produce a working patch.
Maybe we could base this cutoff on the stats target for the column?
That is, "1%" would be the right number if stats target is 100,
otherwise scale appropriately.
> What was your motivation to introduce some limit at the bottom anyway?
Well, we have to do *something* with the last (possibly only) value.
Neither "include always" nor "omit always" seem sane to me. What other
decision rule do you want there?
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
