Re: [HACKERS] correlation in pg_stats

2005-02-08 Thread Simon Riggs
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]@[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote > > Short summary: > > > > * It looks to me like the planner vastly overestimates > > the # of pages read by index scan in quite a few of my > > tables even though stats collected by ANALYZE are correct. > > > > * The problem happens any time y

Re: [HACKERS] correlation in pg_stats

2005-02-08 Thread Mark Kirkwood
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: actually [EMAIL PROTECTED], is Mark Woodward. Pleased to meet you. :) (I hate using my name on lists like this because of spammers) Not to be confused with me :-) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list arch

Re: [HACKERS] correlation in pg_stats

2005-02-08 Thread pgsql
> > Short summary: > > * It looks to me like the planner vastly overestimates > the # of pages read by index scan in quite a few of my > tables even though stats collected by ANALYZE are correct. > > * The problem happens any time you have multiple columns > that have a number of re

[HACKERS] correlation in pg_stats

2005-02-08 Thread Ron Mayer
Short summary: * It looks to me like the planner vastly overestimates the # of pages read by index scan in quite a few of my tables even though stats collected by ANALYZE are correct. * The problem happens any time you have multiple columns that have a number of repeated values