> We could remove the hard limit on statistics target and
> impose the limit
> instead on the actual size of the arrays. Ie, allow people to
> specify larger
> sample sizes and discard unreasonably large excess data
> (possibly warning them
> when that happens).
>
> That would remove the screw case the original poster had
> where he needed to
> scan a large portion of the table to see at least one of
> every value even
> though there were only 169 distinct values.
>
> --
> Gregory Stark
That was my use case, but I wasn't the OP.
Your suggestion would satisfy what I was trying to do. However, a higher stats target wouldn't solve my root problem
(howthe planner uses the gathered stats), and the statistics gathered at 1000 (and indeed at 200) are quite a good
representationof what is in the table.
I don't like the idea of changing one limit into two limits. Or are you suggesting changing the algorithm that
determineshow many, and which pages to analyze, perhaps so that it is adaptive to the results of the analysis as it
progresses?That doesn't sound easy.
Regards,
Stephen Denne.
Disclaimer:
At the Datamail Group we value team commitment, respect, achievement, customer focus, and courage. This email with any
attachmentsis confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. If it is not intended for you please advise by reply
immediately,destroy it and do not copy, disclose or use it in any way.
__________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the DMZGlobal
BusinessQuality Electronic Messaging Suite.
Please see http://www.dmzglobal.com/services/bqem.htm for details.
__________________________________________________________________