On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 14:27 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Csaba, please can you copy that data into fresh tables, re-ANALYZE and
> then re-post the EXPLAINs, with stats data.
Well, I can of course. I actually tried to generate some random data
with similar record count and relations between the tables (which I'm
not sure I succeeded at), without the extra columns, but it was happily
yielding the nested loop plan. So I guess I really have to copy the
whole data (several tens of GB).
But from my very limited understanding of what information is available
for the planner, I thought that the record count estimated for the join
between table_a and table_b1 on column b should be something like
(estimated record count in table_a for value "a") * (weight of "b" range
covered by table_b1 and table_a in common) / (weight of "b" range
covered by table_a)
This is if the "b" values in table_a wouldn't be correlated at all with
the content of table_b2. The reality is that they are, but the planner
has no information about that.
I have no idea how the planner works though, so this might be totally
I will copy the data and send the results (not promising though that it
will be today).
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Gábor Farkas||Date: 2007-09-24 14:07:16|
|Subject: select count(*) performance (vacuum did not help)|
|Previous:||From: brauagustin-susc||Date: 2007-09-24 13:59:26|
|Subject: Re: Low CPU Usage|