Re: Query Optimizer makes a poor choice

From: "Tyler Hains" <thains(at)profitpointinc(dot)com>
To: "plk(dot)zuber" <plk(dot)zuber(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Query Optimizer makes a poor choice
Date: 2011-11-30 22:22:03
Message-ID: H0000069013a95c6.1322691717.mailpa.profitpointinc.com@MHS
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

>> 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
>

I just tried the set statistics on our test system with essentially the
same end result.

I'm beginning to think the answer is to just avoid LIMIT.

Tyler

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Mead 2011-11-30 23:04:29 Re: Extending the volume size of the data directory volume
Previous Message panam 2011-11-30 21:19:44 Re: Extending the volume size of the data directory volume