Re: <= Index.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Greg Sikorski" <gte(at)atomicrevs(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: <= Index.
Date: 2002-03-31 15:28:09
Message-ID: 28976.1017588489@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

"Greg Sikorski" <gte(at)atomicrevs(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> cmaster=# explain analyze SELECT user_id,channel_id FROM levels WHERE
> suspend_expires <= 1017589362 AND suspend_expires <> 0;
> NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:

> Seq Scan on levels (cost=0.00..13709.09 rows=2609 width=8) (actual
> time=208.98..1521.08 rows=17 loops=1)
> Total runtime: 1521.29 msec

First question is *can* the thing use an index? (Try "set enable_seqscan
to off" then explain again.) If not, it's probably a datatype
compatibility issue --- you'll need to quote or explicitly cast the
constant 1017589362 to match the type of suspend_expires.

If it could use an index but chooses not to, at least part of the
problem is the factor-of-100 overestimate in the number of matching
rows. That might be alleviated by increasing the statistics target
for the suspend_expires column. (ALTER TABLE SET STATISTICS, then
ANALYZE or VACUUM ANALYZE.)

You might also find that reducing random_page_cost produces better
indexscan cost estimates for your environment.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Sikorski 2002-03-31 19:25:11 Re: <= Index.
Previous Message Greg Sikorski 2002-03-31 14:48:47 Re: <= Index.