Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Postgres ignoring RTree for geometric operators

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Ralf Mattes <rm(at)mh-freiburg(dot)de>
Cc: Gilles Bernard <gbernard(at)matra-ms2i(dot)fr>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgres ignoring RTree for geometric operators
Date: 2001-01-01 18:50:37
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-docs
Ralf Mattes <rm(at)mh-freiburg(dot)de> writes:
> Still, the remarkl about running 'vacuum' after the creation
> of an index seems valid. I was bitten by this just last week--
> somehow it seems counterintuitive to have to vacuum a table only
> to tell the system that an index exists. This should be the job
> of 'create index' or am i wrong?

The system knows perfectly well that the index exists.  The issue
is whether the planner will conclude that the index is worth using
for a particular query, in the absence of complete statistical
information.  If you've never done a 'vacuum analyze' on the table
then the planner is flying blind about what to do (and no, it does
not matter whether the index exists at the time the vacuum is done).

There are some subtle interactions between the default estimates that
are made for various parameters.  The current behavior clearly needs
work, but I'm hesitant to "fix" it by just lowering the default
selectivity estimate (or some such) without careful study.

I'm hoping to have some time to spend on that issue for 7.2 ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-01-02 02:19:28
Subject: Re: RE: SSL Connections [doc PATCH]
Previous:From: Ralf MattesDate: 2001-01-01 13:53:54
Subject: Re: Postgres ignoring RTree for geometric operators

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group