Thanks @buraksenn for tackling both #21109 and #21111 together with this type-agnostic approach, also the test consolidation over the separate per-type functions is a nice improvement.

A couple of minor notes/questions:

• Since we can't rely on interval analysis for string-based columns, I am not sure we handle correctly "contradictory" filters like name = 'alice' AND name = 'bob', which should get Exact(0) as happening for numeric types. I don't see this as a blocker because it's not worse than before and this is an edge case, but it's good to know where we stand and file a follow-up issue, if needed.

• On a similar note, I was wondering if something like col = NULL gets simplified as false (under the unknown as false semantics for predicates in WHERE clauses). In case it doesn't, it would be worth adding a test making sure we don't set NDV to 1.

• Did you manage to understand why the interval analysis doesn't seem to work as expected for temporal types? It might be worth filing a separate issue for that if you have bandwidth, so we don't lose track of this issue.

Thanks @asolimando for the review. I've checked this again. To make it generic I've missed that I can actually make temporal types work with interval arithmetic analysis since they are i64 backed as well.

Thus answering all:

• I'm kinda afraid into getting this kind of complex behavior since I may not know what can be a side effect. Maybe I can add it to this PR and see the reviews
• I've missed this totally will push to this branch.
• For this, adding support for temporal types seem to be better as I've missed whiel trying to make it generic so I'll open a PR parallel to this one.

I'm working on both changes now and will handle this in the upcoming hours

Thanks @asolimando for the review. I've checked this again. To make it generic I've missed that I can actually make temporal types work with interval arithmetic analysis since they are i64 backed as well.

Sounds great!

Thus answering all:

• I'm kinda afraid into getting this kind of complex behavior since I may not know what can be a side effect. Maybe I can add it to this PR and see the reviews

I think it's enough to add a test to see what happens, before we would have been returning the same NDV value for the input column anyway, I don't think we are doing worse than that, let's add a test and possibly file an issue to not lose the context we built.

• I've missed this totally will push to this branch.
• For this, adding support for temporal types seem to be better as I've missed whiel trying to make it generic so I'll open a PR parallel to this one.

No worries, making it type agnostic was a good call IMO, but what can be handled with interval arithmetic should do it as we can benefit from all the handling of edge cases like the "incoherent predicate" above and possibly others I couldn't think of.

I'm working on both changes now and will handle this in the upcoming hours

No worries, feel free to ping me if you need a review, happy to take a look, thanks for working on this and helping out on so many stats-related tasks :)

Thanks @asolimando for the review. I've checked this again. To make it generic I've missed that I can actually make temporal types work with interval arithmetic analysis since they are i64 backed as well.

Sounds great!

Thus answering all:

• I'm kinda afraid into getting this kind of complex behavior since I may not know what can be a side effect. Maybe I can add it to this PR and see the reviews

I think it's enough to add a test to see what happens, before we would have been returning the same NDV value for the input column anyway, I don't think we are doing worse than that, let's add a test and possibly file an issue to not lose the context we built.

• I've missed this totally will push to this branch.
• For this, adding support for temporal types seem to be better as I've missed whiel trying to make it generic so I'll open a PR parallel to this one.

No worries, making it type agnostic was a good call IMO, but what can be handled with interval arithmetic should do it as we can benefit from all the handling of edge cases like the "incoherent predicate" above and possibly others I couldn't think of.

I'm working on both changes now and will handle this in the upcoming hours

No worries, feel free to ping me if you need a review, happy to take a look, thanks for working on this and helping out on so many stats-related tasks :)

Thanks @asolimando I've opened #21520 temporal types I think it is very straightforward and contained PR and only left non-arithmetic supporting changes here.

@buraksenn I think this is in good shape, you might want to ping a committer (ideally someone with context on this who helped merging related PRs).

@buraksenn I think this is in good shape, you might want to ping a committer (ideally someone with context on this who helped merging related PRs).

Makes sense @asolimando thanks. @2010YOUY01, @xudong963 pinging you since you've taken a look to similar PRs. Can you review this PR whenever you've time to do please? (also @berkaysynnada)

Thanks for the detailed review @berkaysynnada I've applied each comment and pushed the changes