| From: | Markus Bertheau <twanger(at)bluetwanger(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Guillaume Smet <guillaume_ml(at)smet(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Bad plan after vacuum analyze |
| Date: | 2005-05-13 18:35:35 |
| Message-ID: | 1116009335.7327.0.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
В Срд, 11/05/2005 в 22:59 +0200, Guillaume Smet пишет:
> Anyway, I tried to work on the statistics as you told me and here are
> the results:
> ccm_perf=# ALTER TABLE acs_objects ALTER COLUMN object_id SET STATISTICS 30;
> ALTER TABLE
> ccm_perf=# ANALYZE acs_objects;
> ANALYZE
>
> ccm_perf=# \i query_section.sql
> ... correct plan ...
> Total runtime: 0.555 ms
Given Tom's analysis, how can increasing the stats target change which
plan is chosen?
--
Markus Bertheau <twanger(at)bluetwanger(dot)de>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joel Fradkin | 2005-05-13 19:27:55 | ok you all win what is best opteron (I dont want a hosed system again) |
| Previous Message | John A Meinel | 2005-05-13 18:32:42 | Re: Optimize complex join to use where condition before |