Re: proposal : cross-column stats

Florian G. Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>

From: Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>
To: Nicolas Barbier <nicolas.barbier@gmail.com>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tv@fuzzy.cz>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2010-12-24T12:37:29Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Dec24, 2010, at 11:23 , Nicolas Barbier wrote:

> 2010/12/24 Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>:
> 
>> On Dec23, 2010, at 20:39 , Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> 
>>>   I guess we could use the highest possible value (equal to the number
>>>   of tuples) - according to wiki you need about 10 bits per element
>>>   with 1% error, i.e. about 10MB of memory for each million of
>>>   elements.
>> 
>> Drat. I had expected these number to come out quite a bit lower than
>> that, at least for a higher error target. But even with 10% false
>> positive rate, it's still 4.5MB per 1e6 elements. Still too much to
>> assume the filter will always fit into memory, I fear :-(
> 
> I have the impression that both of you are forgetting that there are 8
> bits in a byte. 10 bits per element = 1.25MB per milion elements.

Uh, of course. So in the real universe, the numbers are

~1.2MB per 1e6 elements for a false positive rate of 1%
~0.5MB per 1e6 elements for a false positive rate of 10%

Hm. So for a table with a billion distinct elements, we'd need half
a gigabyte per column for the filter. A tuple with two int columns
takes at least 24+2*4 = 32bytes to store I think, making such a table
at least 32GB in size. The filter size would thus be 1/64 of the table
size in the worst case. 

best regards,
Florian Pflug