On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 09:16 -0700, Matt Smiley wrote:
> Hi Kiran,
>
> You gave great info on your problem.
>
> First, is this the query you're actually trying to speed up, or is it a
> simplified version? It looks like the optimizer has already chosen the best
> execution plan for the given qu
Hi Kiran,
You gave great info on your problem.
First, is this the query you're actually trying to speed up, or is it a
simplified version? It looks like the optimizer has already chosen the best
execution plan for the given query. Since the query has no joins, we only have
to consider access
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Kiran Mukhyala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Can someone please tell me how to improve the query planner
>estimate? I did try vacuum analyze. Here are some details:
Have you tried increasing the statistics target for that table (or in general)?
--
-
Hello,
I am running a select on a large table with two where
conditions.
Explain analyze shows that the estimated number of rows returned
(190760) is much more than the actual rows returned (58221),
which is probably the underlying cause for the poor
