Re: Performance on inserts

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jules Bean <jules(at)jellybean(dot)co(dot)uk>, Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance on inserts
Date: 2000-10-15 21:59:22
Message-ID: 5846.971647162@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>>> * Prevent index lookups (or index entries using partial index) on most
>>>> common values; instead use sequential scan
>>
>> This behavior already exists for the most common value, and would
>> exist for any additional values that we had stats for. Don't see
>> why you think a separate TODO item is needed.

> You mean the optimizer already skips an index lookup for the most common
> value, and instead does a sequential scan?

No, it goes for the sequential scan if it estimates the cost of the
indexscan as more than sequential. Indexscan cost depends on estimated
number of retrieved rows --- which it can estimate from pg_statistic
if the query is WHERE column = mostcommonvalue. So which plan you get
depends on just how common the most common value is.

Hard-wiring either choice of plan for the most common value would be
inferior to what the code already does, AFAICS. But for values other
than the-most-common, we don't have adequate stats in pg_statistic,
and so you may or may not get a good estimated row count and hence
a good choice of plan. That's what needs to be fixed.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2000-10-15 22:22:28 Re: Performance on inserts
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2000-10-15 21:55:22 Re: Performance on inserts