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

Re: [PATCHES] Better default_statistics_target

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Decibel!" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>,"Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Better default_statistics_target
Date: 2008-01-31 14:55:35
Message-ID: 47A18D07.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at  8:13 PM, in message
<d6d6637f0801301813n64fa58eu76385cf8a621907(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>, "Christopher
Browne" <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote: 
 
> There seems to be *plenty* of evidence out there that the performance
> penalty would NOT be "essentially zero."
 
I can confirm that I have had performance tank because of boosting
the statistics target for selected columns.  It appeared to be time
spent in the planning phase, not a bad plan choice.  Reducing the
numbers restored decent performance.
 
-Kevin
 



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2008-01-31 15:05:16
Subject: Re: {**Spam**} Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-01-31 14:47:42
Subject: Re: Oops - BF:Mastodon just died

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2008-01-31 15:05:16
Subject: Re: {**Spam**} Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2008-01-31 14:47:26
Subject: Remove pg_dump -i option (was Re: Proposed patch:synchronized_scanning GUC variable)

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