On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:08:05 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
>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
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";
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-06-26 16:03:52|
|Subject: Re: problem with pg_statistics |
|Previous:||From: SZUCS Gábor||Date: 2003-06-26 15:06:32|
|Subject: Re: Similar querys, better execution time on worst execution plan|