Re: Help Me Understand Why I'm Getting a Bad Query Plan

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bryan Murphy <bmurphy1976(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Help Me Understand Why I'm Getting a Bad Query Plan
Date: 2009-03-26 02:15:14
Message-ID: 11650.1238033714@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Bryan Murphy <bmurphy1976(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I tried that already, but I decided to try again in case I messed up
> something last time. Here's what I ran. As you can see, it still
> chooses to do a sequential scan. Am I changing the stats for those
> columns correctly?

I think what you should be doing is messing with the cost parameters
... and not in the direction you tried before. I gather from
effective_cache_size = 12GB
that you have plenty of RAM on this machine. If the tables involved
are less than 1GB then it's likely that you are operating in a fully
cached condition, and the default cost parameters are not set up for
that. You want to be charging a lot less for page accesses relative to
CPU effort. Try reducing both seq_page_cost and random_page_cost to 0.5
or even 0.1. You'll need to watch your other queries to make sure
nothing gets radically worse though ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bryan Murphy 2009-03-26 03:19:13 Re: Help Me Understand Why I'm Getting a Bad Query Plan
Previous Message Stef Telford 2009-03-26 00:50:20 Re: Raid 10 chunksize