| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, George Pavlov <gpavlov(at)mynewplace(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: index vs. seq scan choice? |
| Date: | 2007-05-25 03:26:08 |
| Message-ID: | 115.1180063568@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-www |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not sure I want to vote for another 10x increase by
>> default, though.
> Outside of longer analyze times, and slightly more space taken up by the
> statistics, what is the downside?
Longer plan times --- several of the selfuncs.c routines grovel over all
the entries in the pg_statistic row. AFAIK no one's measured the real
impact of that, but it could easily be counterproductive for simple queries.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steve Atkins | 2007-05-25 04:25:23 | Re: index vs. seq scan choice? |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-05-25 02:57:10 | Re: index vs. seq scan choice? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steve Atkins | 2007-05-25 04:25:23 | Re: index vs. seq scan choice? |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-05-25 02:57:10 | Re: index vs. seq scan choice? |