In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
% "George Pavlov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
% >> From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
% >> In those rare cases wouldn't it make more sense to just set
% >> enable_seqscan to off; run query; set enable_seqscan to on;
%
George Pavlov wrote:
From: Tom Lane
"George Pavlov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In those rare cases wouldn't it make more sense to just set
enable_seqscan to off; run query; set enable_seqscan to on;
1. these cases are not that rare (to me);
It s
> From: Tom Lane
> "George Pavlov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> In those rare cases wouldn't it make more sense to just set
> >> enable_seqscan to off; run query; set enable_seqscan to on;
>
> > 1. these cases are not that rare (to me);
>
>
"George Pavlov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In those rare cases wouldn't it make more sense to just set
>> enable_seqscan to off; run query; set enable_seqscan to on;
> 1. these cases are not that rare (to me);
It strikes me that you probably
George Pavlov wrote:
From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In those rare cases wouldn't it make more sense to just set
enable_seqscan to off; run query; set enable_seqscan to on;
1. these cases are not that rare (to me);
I find that surprising.
2. setting enable_seqscan (in JDB
> From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> In those rare cases wouldn't it make more sense to just set
> enable_seqscan to off; run query; set enable_seqscan to on;
1. these cases are not that rare (to me);
2. setting enable_seqscan (in JDBC, say) from the application makes the
whole
George Pavlov wrote:
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"George Pavlov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
to 977ms! If I go the other way and SET STATISTICS 1 (or 0) I can bring
down the list to one entry (setting to 0 seems equivalent and still
keeps the one most common entry!?) and I will ge
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "George Pavlov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I am curious what could make the PA query to ignore the
> index. What are
> > the specific stats that are being used to make this decision?
>
> you don't have the column's statistics target set high enou
Steve Atkins wrote:
Would it be possible to look at a much larger number of samples
during analyze,
then look at the variation in those to generate a reasonable number of
pg_statistic "samples" to represent our estimate of the actual
distribution?
More datapoints for tables where the planner
Would it be possible to look at a much larger number of samples during
analyze,
then look at the variation in those to generate a reasonable number of
pg_statistic "samples" to represent our estimate of the actual
distribution?
More datapoints for tables where the planner might benefit from
On May 24, 2007, at 8:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
I'm not sure I want to vote for another 10x increase by
default, though.
Outside of longer analyze times, and slightly more space taken up
by the
statistics, what is the downside?
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not sure I want to vote for another 10x increase by
>> default, though.
> Outside of longer analyze times, and slightly more space taken up by the
> statistics, what is the downside?
Longer plan times --- several of the selfu
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
(The default statistics target is 10, which is widely considered too
low --- you might find 100 more suitable.)
Does this mean that we should look into raising the default a bit?
Probably ... the question is to what
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> (The default statistics target is 10, which is widely considered too
>> low --- you might find 100 more suitable.)
> Does this mean that we should look into raising the default a bit?
Probably ... the question is to what.
The defaul
Tom Lane wrote:
> (The default statistics target is 10, which is widely considered too
> low --- you might find 100 more suitable.)
Does this mean that we should look into raising the default a bit?
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Co
"George Pavlov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am curious what could make the PA query to ignore the index. What are
> the specific stats that are being used to make this decision?
The frequency of the specific value being searched for, and the overall
order-correlation of the column. Since the
I am trying to figure out how the distribution of data affects index
usage by the query because I am seeing some behavior that does not seem
optimal to my uneducated eye.
I am on PG 8.1.8. I have two tables foo and foo_detail, both have been
vacuum analyzed recently. Both have a property_id colum
17 matches
Mail list logo
