Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > It is. I've found that "problem" queries, especially those caused by real, > > uneven distribution of data, require raising statistics to 150-400 in order > > to fix. This is much to high a level to assign as a default. > > That's basically what's bothering me about the suggestion to increase to > 25 --- I'm dubious that it will do any good. > > > Further, in 7.5 we'll be introducing correlated stats for multi-column indexes > > (unless something's gone off with that?) > > News to me. It's certainly not there now. > > > This will then give indexed columns "automatically" a somewhat higher > > level of stats analysis than other columns. > > That is potentially a good idea. There's still the question of what is > a reasonable default, though.
Do all the columns have to have the same number of statistics buckets? Could that stats collector adjust the number of buckets based on the data somehow? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
