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

Re: Shouldn't we have a way to avoid "risky" plans?

From: Justin Pitts <justinpitts(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Shouldn't we have a way to avoid "risky" plans?
Date: 2011-03-23 18:02:14
Message-ID: AANLkTikeS8ChvSydcMXhLbz8t4AUUx+iUFTinANwHtfX@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> AFAICT, what's happening in this query is that PostgreSQL's statistics
> on the device_nodes and several other tables are slightly out of date
> (as in 5% of the table).

What about some manner of query feedback mechanism ( along the lines
of what explain analyze yields ) to track "stats staleness" in
general?

Probably, I misunderstand the costs of executing explain analyze.

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Cédric VillemainDate: 2011-03-23 20:23:46
Subject: Re: buffercache/bgwriter
Previous:From: Claudio FreireDate: 2011-03-23 17:35:55
Subject: Re: Shouldn't we have a way to avoid "risky" plans?

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