Re: Query Optimizer makes a poor choice

From: Filip Rembiałkowski <plk(dot)zuber(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tyler Hains <thains(at)profitpointinc(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Query Optimizer makes a poor choice
Date: 2011-11-29 22:06:34
Message-ID: CAP_rwwnET3MKOpELPaTHq71GDwwwsNnQBNbbmPG=SSgRijtKJg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

2011/11/29 Tyler Hains <thains(at)profitpointinc(dot)com>:

> I haven't had a chance to experiment with the SET STATISTICS, but that
> got me going on something interesting...
>
> Do these statistics look right?
>
> # SELECT attname, n_distinct, most_common_vals, histogram_bounds FROM
> pg_stats WHERE tablename = 'cards';
>
...
> "card_set_id"   905
> "{5201,3203,3169,5679,5143,5204,5655,4322,5236,4513}"
> "{4,3080,3896,4349,4701,5179,5445,5706,6003,6361,6784}"

This looks promising, because n_distinct is low enough that you can
cover almost all values with statistics.
raise the statistics and ANALYZE. should help.
(NOTE NOTE NOTE: assuming that the distribution is even)

...
but one thing we see for sure is that you have not tuned your
PostgreSQL instance :-)
I would recommend pgtune, -> pgfoundry.org/projects/pgtune/
it covers most important stuff, *including* default_statistics_target.

Filip

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heiko Wundram 2011-11-29 22:18:43 Re: Limiting number of connections to PostgreSQL per IP (not per DB/user)?
Previous Message Tyler Hains 2011-11-29 21:43:52 Re: Query Optimizer makes a poor choice