From: Markus Bertheau <twanger@bluetwanger.de>
To: Guillaume Smet <guillaume_ml@smet.org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: josh@agliodbs.com
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Bad plan after vacuum analyze
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 20:35:35 +0200
Message-ID: <1116009335.7327.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4282723C.5080903@smet.org>
References: <42823F94.8050009@smet.org>
<200505111110.15983.josh@agliodbs.com>
<13964.1115837926@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<42825DBB.7000703@smet.org>
<14301.1115840296@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<4282638E.2020307@smet.org>
<17017.1115843555@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<4282723C.5080903@smet.org>
В Срд, 11/05/2005 в 22:59 +0200, Guillaume Smet пишет:
> Anyway, I tried to work on the statistics as you told me and here are
> the results:
> ccm_perf=# ALTER TABLE acs_objects ALTER COLUMN object_id SET STATISTICS 30;
> ALTER TABLE
> ccm_perf=# ANALYZE acs_objects;
> ANALYZE
>
> ccm_perf=# \i query_section.sql
> ... correct plan ...
> Total runtime: 0.555 ms
Given Tom's analysis, how can increasing the stats target change which
plan is chosen?
--
Markus Bertheau <twanger@bluetwanger.de>
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 188B) download
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: twanger@bluetwanger.de, guillaume_ml@smet.org, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, josh@agliodbs.com
Subject: Re: Bad plan after vacuum analyze
In-Reply-To: <1116009335.7327.0.camel@localhost.localdomain>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox