Re: Re: [GENERAL] Performance issue with libpq prepared queries on 9.3 and 9.4

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] Performance issue with libpq prepared queries on 9.3 and 9.4
Date: 2014-11-14 00:47:24
Message-ID: 27290.1415926044@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane-2 wrote
>> In the meantime, I assume that your real data contains a small percentage
>> of values other than these two? If so, maybe cranking up the statistics
>> target would help. If the planner knows that there are more than two
>> values in the column, I think it would be less optimistic about assuming
>> that the comparison value is one of the big two.

> Is there any value (or can value be added) in creating a partial index of
> the form:

> archetype IN ('banner','some other rare value')

> such that the planner will see that such a value is possible but infrequent
> and will, in the presence of a plan using a value contained in the partial
> index, refuse to use a generic plan knowing that it will be unable to use
> the very specific index that the user created?

The existence of such an index wouldn't alter the planner's statistics.
In theory we could make it do so, but I seriously doubt the cost-benefit
ratio is attractive, either as to implementation effort or the added
planning cost.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Johnston 2014-11-14 01:08:35 Re: Re: [GENERAL] Performance issue with libpq prepared queries on 9.3 and 9.4
Previous Message David G Johnston 2014-11-14 00:43:45 Re: [GENERAL] Performance issue with libpq prepared queries on 9.3 and 9.4

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-11-14 00:53:56 Re: EXPLAIN ANALYZE output weird for Top-N Sort
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2014-11-14 00:46:30 EXPLAIN ANALYZE output weird for Top-N Sort