Re: [PATCHES] Better default_statistics_target

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Decibel!" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, "Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Better default_statistics_target
Date: 2008-01-31 14:55:35
Message-ID: 47A18D07.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 8:13 PM, in message
<d6d6637f0801301813n64fa58eu76385cf8a621907(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>, "Christopher
Browne" <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> There seems to be *plenty* of evidence out there that the performance
> penalty would NOT be "essentially zero."

I can confirm that I have had performance tank because of boosting
the statistics target for selected columns. It appeared to be time
spent in the planning phase, not a bad plan choice. Reducing the
numbers restored decent performance.

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2008-01-31 15:05:16 Re: {**Spam**} Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-01-31 14:47:42 Re: Oops - BF:Mastodon just died

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2008-01-31 15:05:16 Re: {**Spam**} Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2008-01-31 14:47:26 Remove pg_dump -i option (was Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable)