Re: strange query plans

From: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>
To: Chris Jones <chris(at)mt(dot)sri(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: strange query plans
Date: 2000-11-30 23:34:33
Message-ID: Pine.BSF.4.21.0011301532550.48480-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general


On 30 Nov 2000, Chris Jones wrote:

> PG seems to be choosing a sub-optimal query plan. It's doing a
> sequential scan of a 120000-tuple table, instead of an index scan for
> the 16 matching rows. Running PG 7.0.2:
>
> fastfacts=> vacuum analyze event;
> VACUUM
> fastfacts=> explain select type from event where type = 'IPOETC_EVENT';
> NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
>
> Seq Scan on event (cost=0.00..6664.25 rows=6224 width=12)

> I know that PG is frequently smarter than I am, but this doesn't seem
> like a case where it's made a good decision. What am I missing?

postgres is expecting 6224 rows to match rather than the 16 that are
actually there. Usual questions are has this table been vacuum analyzed
recently and is there a very common value that is much more common
than other data in the column (this throws off the estimates).

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephan Szabo 2000-11-30 23:35:41 Re: inheritance and foreign keys
Previous Message Roberto Mello 2000-11-30 23:25:15 Re: String function page incorrect?