Re: Bad Planner Statistics for Uneven distribution.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Kevin McArthur" <Kevin(at)StormTide(dot)ca>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bad Planner Statistics for Uneven distribution.
Date: 2006-07-21 21:29:53
Message-ID: 8073.1153517393@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

"Kevin McArthur" <Kevin(at)StormTide(dot)ca> writes:
> -> Seq Scan on models_brands (cost=0.00..6411.89 rows=369489 width=4) (actual time=0.040..1352.997 rows=369489 loops=1)
> ...
> -> Index Scan using models_brands_brand on models_brands (cost=0.00..862236.96 rows=369489 width=4) (actual time=0.122..1440.809 rows=369489 loops=1)

> Picks the wrong plan here. Should pick the index with seqscanning enabled.

It's really not possible for a full-table indexscan to be faster than a
seqscan, and not very credible for it even to be approximately as fast.
I suspect your second query here is the beneficiary of the first query
having fetched all the pages into cache. In general, if you want to
optimize for a mostly-cached database, you need to reduce
random_page_cost below its default value ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Guillaume Smet 2006-07-21 22:00:01 Re: Bad Planner Statistics for Uneven distribution.
Previous Message Kevin Keith 2006-07-21 20:28:57 Re: Partitioned tables in queries