From: | Brian Herlihy <btherl(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: An unwanted seqscan |
Date: | 2007-02-15 01:30:46 |
Message-ID: | 20070215013046.64730.qmail@web52310.mail.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hi Tom,
Sorry, I didn't ask the right question. I meant to ask "Why does it estimate a smaller cost for the seqscan?"
With some further staring I was able to find the bad estimate and fix it by increasing the relevant statistics target.
Thanks,
Brian
----- Original Message ----
From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Brian Herlihy <btherl(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Wednesday, 14 February, 2007 4:53:54 PM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] An unwanted seqscan
Brian Herlihy <btherl(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> I am having trouble understanding why a seqscan is chosen for this query.
As far as anyone can see from this output, the planner's decisions are
correct: it prefers the plans with the smaller estimated cost. If you
want us to take an interest, provide some more context --- EXPLAIN
ANALYZE output for starters.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Konstantinos Krikellas | 2007-02-15 12:58:33 | Problem with joining queries. |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2007-02-14 23:42:55 | Re: Benchmarking PGSQL? |