Tom Lane writes:
> "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Imho one of the biggest sources for problems is people creating new
> > indexes on populated tables when the rest of the db/table has badly
> > outdated statistics or even only default statistics in place.
> > In this s
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Imho one of the biggest sources for problems is people creating new
> indexes on populated tables when the rest of the db/table has badly
> outdated statistics or even only default statistics in place.
> In this situation the optimizer is b
> Of course the question "did you vacuum" (better, did you analyze) is
> annoying, just as the requirement to analyze is annoying in the first
> place, but unless someone designs a better query planner it
> will have to do. The reason why we always ask that question first is
> that people inva
mlw writes:
> The "not using index" was very frustrating to understand. The stock answer,
> "did you vacuum?" just isn't enough. There has to be some explanation (in the
> FAQ or something) about the indexed key distribution in your data.
Most "not using index" questions seem to be related to a
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... Postgres' statistics are pretty poor too, a relative few very
> populous entries in a table will make it virtually impossible for the
> cost based optimizer (CBO) to use an index.
Have you looked at development sources lately?
regards
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
>
> > > > *very* slow, due to seq scan on
> > > > 20 million entries, which is a test setup up to now)
> > >
> > > Perennial first question: did you VACUUM ANALYZE?
> >
> > Can there, or could there, be a notion of "rule based" optimization of
> > queries in Postg
> > > *very* slow, due to seq scan on
> > > 20 million entries, which is a test setup up to now)
> >
> > Perennial first question: did you VACUUM ANALYZE?
>
> Can there, or could there, be a notion of "rule based" optimization of
> queries in PostgreSQL? The "not using index" problem is probably
Doug McNaught wrote:
> Reiner Dassing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hello PostgreSQl Users!
> >
> > PostSQL V 7.1.1:
> >
> > I have defined a table and the necessary indices.
> > But the index is not used in every SELECT. (Therefore, the selects are
> > *very* slow, due to seq scan on
> > 20
Reiner Dassing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello PostgreSQl Users!
>
> PostSQL V 7.1.1:
>
> I have defined a table and the necessary indices.
> But the index is not used in every SELECT. (Therefore, the selects are
> *very* slow, due to seq scan on
> 20 million entries, which is a test setup
> Hello PostgreSQl Users!
>
> PostSQL V 7.1.1:
You should upgrade to 7.1.3 at some point...
> I have defined a table and the necessary indices.
> But the index is not used in every SELECT. (Therefore, the selects are
> *very* slow, due to seq scan on
> 20 million entries, which is a test setup u
Hello PostgreSQl Users!
PostSQL V 7.1.1:
I have defined a table and the necessary indices.
But the index is not used in every SELECT. (Therefore, the selects are
*very* slow, due to seq scan on
20 million entries, which is a test setup up to now)
The definitions can be seen in the annex.
Does
11 matches
Mail list logo
