On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote: > This patch set is in pretty good shape, the only problem is that it's so big > that no-one seems to have the time or courage to do the final touches and > commit it.
Did you see my suggestions about simplifying its SQL structure? You could shave some code without impacting the base set of features. > I fear that using "statistics" as the name of the new object might get a bit > awkward. "statistics" is a plural, but we use it as the name of a single > object, like "pants" or "scissors". Not sure I have any better ideas though. > "estimator"? "statistics collection"? Or perhaps it should be singular, > "statistic". I note that you actually called the system table > "pg_mv_statistic", in singular. > > I'm not a big fan of storing the stats as just a bytea blob, and having to > use special functions to interpret it. By looking at the patch, it's not > clear to me what we actually store for functional dependencies. A list of > attribute numbers? Could we store them simply as an int[]? (I'm not a big > fan of the hack in pg_statistic, that allows storing arrays of any data type > in the same column, though. But for functional dependencies, I don't think > we need that.) I am marking this patch as returned with feedback for now. > Overall, this is going to be a great feature! +1. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
