Re: Confirmation of bad query plan generated by 7.4

On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 04:35:41PM -0500, Shaun Thomas wrote:
> >>> On 6/13/2006 at 4:13 PM, "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > Is there some compelling reason to stick with 7.4? In my experience
> > you'll see around double (+100%) the performance going to 8.1...
>
> Not really. We *really* want to upgrade, but we're in the middle of
> buying the new machine right now. There's also the issue of migrating
> 37GB of data which I don't look forward to, considering we'll need to
> set up a slony replication for the entire thing to avoid the hours
> of downtime necessary for a full dump/restore.

As long as the master isn't very heavily loaded it shouldn't be that big
a deal to do so...

> > What's your stats target set to for that table?
>
> Not sure what you mean by that. It's just that this table has 27M
> rows
> extending over 4 years, and I'm not quite sure how to hint to that.
> An index scan for a few days would be a tiny fraction of the entire
> table, so PG being insistent on the sequence scans was confusing the
> hell
> out of me.

What's the output of
SELECT attname, attstattarget
FROM pg_attribute
WHERE attrelid='table_name'::regclass AND attnum >= 0;
and
SHOW default_statistics_target;

?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461