Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If you CLUSTER on an index and then ANALYSE, you get a correlation of
>> 1.0 (== optimum) for the first column of the index.
> Correlating of what to what? Of data to nearby data? Of data to
> related data (ie, multi-column index?)? Of related data to pages on
> disk? Not 100% sure in what context you're using the word
> correlation...
The correlation is between index order and heap order --- that is, are
the tuples in the table physically in the same order as the index?
The better the correlation, the fewer heap-page reads it will take to do
an index scan.
Note it is possible to measure correlation without regard to whether
there actually is any index; ANALYZE is simply looking to see whether
the values appear in increasing order according to the datatype's
default sort operator.
One problem we have is extrapolating from the single-column correlation
stats computed by ANALYZE to appropriate info for multi-column indexes.
It might be that the only reasonable fix for this is for ANALYZE to
compute multi-column stats too when multi-column indexes are present.
People are used to the assumption that you don't need to re-ANALYZE
after creating a new index, but maybe we'll have to give that up.
> But that value will degrade after time and at what rate? Does ANALYZE
> maintain that value so that it's kept acurrate?
You keep it up to date by ANALYZE-ing at suitable intervals. It's no
different from any other statistic.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
