>
> > So, the selectivity that a search for the most common value would
> > have is a reasonable estimate for the selectivity of a search for any
> > value. That's a bogus assumption in this case --- but it's hard to
> > justify making any other assumption in general.
> >
> Other db's usually use the value count(*) / nunique for the light weight
> statistics.
> This makes the assumptoin that the distinct index values are evenly
> distributed.
> That is on average a correct assumption, whereas our assumption on average
> overestimates the number of rows returned.
> I am not sure we have a nunique info though.
>
Yes, that's the problem. Figuring out the number of uniques is hard,
expecially with no index.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026