Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Bad plan after vacuum analyze

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Guillaume Smet <guillaume_ml(at)smet(dot)org>
Cc: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bad plan after vacuum analyze
Date: 2005-05-11 19:38:16
Message-ID: 14301.1115840296@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Guillaume Smet <guillaume_ml(at)smet(dot)org> writes:
>> If so, can we see the pg_stats rows for the object_id and
>> parent_application_id columns?

> See attached file.

Well, those stats certainly appear to justify the planner's belief that
the indexscan needn't run very far: the one value of
parent_application_id is 1031 and this is below the smallest value of
object_id seen by analyze.  You might have better luck if you increase
the statistics target for acs_objects.object_id.  (It'd be interesting
to know what fraction of acs_objects actually does have object_id < 1032.)

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Guillaume SmetDate: 2005-05-11 19:57:02
Subject: Re: Bad plan after vacuum analyze
Previous:From: Guillaume SmetDate: 2005-05-11 19:32:11
Subject: Re: Bad plan after vacuum analyze

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group