"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I was planning to use the first and last histogram values for the frame of
>> reference. It could still produce some weird graphs but those cases are
>> precisely the c
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> You're presuming there exists a linear scalar space to reference the
>> results to.
> I was planning to use the first and last histogram values for the frame of
> reference. It could still produce some weird grap
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> How so? The entries in the histogram are equidistant by definition.
>
>> Huh? They have equal number of values between them, they're not equidistant
>> in
>> the scala
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> How so? The entries in the histogram are equidistant by definition.
> Huh? They have equal number of values between them, they're not equidistant in
> the scalar space. So the area of each bar should be the same
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> When complaining I hadn't read the pghackers thread in which you
>>> suggested this, and now that I'm caught up on email I remain
>>> unconvinced. What do you need conv
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> When complaining I hadn't read the pghackers thread in which you
>> suggested this, and now that I'm caught up on email I remain
>> unconvinced. What do you need convert_to_scalar for in order to display
>> the p
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When complaining I hadn't read the pghackers thread in which you
> suggested this, and now that I'm caught up on email I remain
> unconvinced. What do you need convert_to_scalar for in order to display
> the pg_statistic histogram? You've already got the
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Attached is a patch which implements, as discussed briefly on -hackers, a
>.> user-visible function to get at the information that convert_to_scalar uses
>to
>>> gene
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Attached is a patch which implements, as discussed briefly on -hackers, a
>> user-visible function to get at the information that convert_to_scalar uses
>> to
>> generate selectivity estimates.
>
> This is an a
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Attached is a patch which implements, as discussed briefly on -hackers, a
> user-visible function to get at the information that convert_to_scalar uses to
> generate selectivity estimates.
This is an astonishingly bad idea, as it exposes and thereby sets
Attached is a patch which implements, as discussed briefly on -hackers, a
user-visible function to get at the information that convert_to_scalar uses to
generate selectivity estimates.
The main use case for this is for tools such as pgadmin which want to make
sense of the histograms, they need to
11 matches
Mail list logo
