On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 04:59, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Kim Hansen wrote:
>
>> I have run the queries a few times in order to warm up the caches, the
>> queries stabilise on 20ms and 180ms.
>
> My first curiosity is not why the estimate is too
Hi all
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 19:11, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 6:47 AM, Kim Hansen wrote:
>> Hi All
>>
>> I have a query where the planner makes a wrong cost estimate, it looks
>> like it underestimates the cost of a "Bitmap Heap Scan" compa
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 17:34, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Kim Hansen wrote:
>
>> I have a query where the planner makes a wrong cost estimate, it
>> looks like it underestimates the cost of a "Bitmap Heap Scan"
>> compared to an "Index Scan".
>
>&
Fast (21ms): http://explain.depesz.com/s/ThQ
I have run "VACUUM FULL VERBOSE ANALYZE". I have configured
shared_buffers and effective_cache_size, that didn't solve my problem,
the estimates was kept the same and both queries got faster.
What can I do to fix the cost estimate?
Regards,
Ki
