Re: Stats for inheritance trees
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2010-01-05T18:22:28Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> It's probably also worth noting that the reason I used DISTINCT >> originally is because it's already a keyword. > > True. > > It occurs to me that the pg_stats view already exposes "n_distinct" > as a column name. I wouldn't object to using "n_distinct" and > "n_distinct_inherited" or some such. OK. So we have: 1. distinct and inherited_distinct, or 2. n_distinct and n_distinct_inherited Any other votes/thoughts/opinions/color commentary? ...Robert