| From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruno BAGUETTE <pgsql-ml(at)baguette(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: RE : RE : Increase performance of a UNION query that |
| Date: | 2004-02-08 05:36:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20040207213513.A41594@megazone.bigpanda.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Bruno BAGUETTE wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Bruno BAGUETTE wrote:
> >
> > > > In addition to what Tom said, the row estimates look suspiciously
> > > > default. You mention vacuuming, but do you ever analyze
> > > > the tables?
> > >
> > > I run VACUUM FULL ANALYZE with the postgres user on all the
> > > PostgreSQL
> > > databases on the server, twice a day, sometimes more.
> >
> > Wierd, because you're getting 1000 estimated on both people
> > and organizations. What does pg_class have to say about
> > those two tables?
>
> I'm sorry but I think that I misunderstand you. Are you telling me that
> running VACUUM FULL ANALYZE is weird ? Or do you mean another thing ?
No, I was saying it's wierd that it'd be misestimating to the default
values after a vacuum full analyze.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-02-09 05:34:18 | Re: Why is query selecting sequential? |
| Previous Message | Bruno BAGUETTE | 2004-02-08 00:26:40 | RE : RE : Increase performance of a UNION query that thakes 655.07 msec to be runned ? |