From: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andre Schubert <andre(at)km3(dot)de>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: problem with pg_statistics |
Date: | 2003-06-26 15:51:56 |
Message-ID: | h64mfv8quqjc19dv0ufm9oegj6p1rpeipp@4ax.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:08:05 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
wrote:
>Andre Schubert <andre(at)km3(dot)de> writes:
>> i think i need a little help with a problem with pg_statistic.
>
>Try reducing random_page_cost
With index scan cost being more than 25 * seq scan cost, I guess that
- all other things held equal - even random_page_cost = 1 wouldn't
help.
Andre might also want to experiment with effective_cache_size and with
ALTER TABLE ... SET STATISTICS.
Or there's something wrong with correlation?
Andre, what hardware is this running on? What are the values of
shared_buffers, random_page_cost, effective_cache_size, ... ? Could
you show us the result of
SELECT * FROM pg_stats
WHERE tablename = "tbl_traffic" AND attname = "time_stamp";
Servus
Manfred
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-06-26 16:03:52 | Re: problem with pg_statistics |
Previous Message | SZUCS Gábor | 2003-06-26 15:06:32 | Re: Similar querys, better execution time on worst execution plan |