Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47921650322 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:48:55 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 96664-01 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:48:52 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com (yw-out-2324.google.com [74.125.46.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 132066501CA for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:48:51 -0400 (AST) Received: by yw-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 3so555011ywj.73 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:48:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.65.205.16 with SMTP id h16mr2496896qbq.62.1229035723127; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:48:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from oxford.xeocode.com.enterprisedb.com (206-248-162-62.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.162.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k27sm3662870qba.2.2008.12.11.14.48.39 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:48:41 -0800 (PST) To: Tom Lane Cc: "Robert Haas" , "Kevin Grittner" , "jd\@commandprompt.com" , "Josh Berkus" , "Greg Smith" , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: benchmarking the query planner In-Reply-To: <9565.1229018968@sss.pgh.pa.us> (Tom Lane's message of "Thu\, 11 Dec 2008 13\:09\:28 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) X-Draft-From: ("nnimap+imap.gmail.com:HACKERS" 50883) References: <603c8f070812061019r5aca3aajeaa5493b11c5feff@mail.gmail.com> <9897C4AF-6D47-4F44-AD3D-F5A82AC392DB@enterprisedb.com> <87ljuq4rmk.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> <603c8f070812092025k6325e0fcud001b205a507a634@mail.gmail.com> <4313.1228931932@sss.pgh.pa.us> <603c8f070812101828p1bd7df49yb8c916adedb49fe1@mail.gmail.com> <9565.1229018968@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Gregory Stark Organization: EnterpriseDB Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:48:37 +0000 Message-ID: <877i66tjju.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200812/825 X-Sequence-Number: 129454 Tom Lane writes: > 500 114.076 > 600 157.535 > 700 211.189 > 800 269.731 > 900 335.427 > 1000 409.638 >... > BTW, does anyone have an opinion about changing the upper limit for > default_stats_target to, say, 10000? These tests suggest that you > wouldn't want such a value for a column used as a join key, but > I can see a possible argument for high values in text search and > similar applications. I don't like the existing arbitrary limit which it sounds like people are really bumping into. But that curve looks like it might be getting awfully steep. I wonder just how long 10,000 would take? -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training!