Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28BF19F9E0D for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:22:22 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 70536-10 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:22:14 -0300 (ADT) Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 973BD9F9C3C for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:22:21 -0300 (ADT) Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72]) by news.hub.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l8RIMDl1079590 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:22:13 -0300 (ADT) (envelope-from news@news.hub.org) Received: (from news@localhost) by news.hub.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id l8RI7TX6087616 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:07:29 -0300 (ADT) (envelope-from news) From: Ron Mayer X-Newsgroups: pgsql.performance Subject: Re: Searching for the cause of a bad plan Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:07:48 -0700 Organization: Hub.Org Networking Services Lines: 11 Message-ID: <46FBF174.1020206@cheapcomplexdevices.com> References: <1190369024.4661.173.camel@PCD12478> <6175.1190390913@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1190396352.4202.109.camel@ebony.site> <13644.1190397220@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1190399879.4202.127.camel@ebony.site> <27857.1190417434@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1190640429.4181.165.camel@ebony.site> <1190818357.5430.29.camel@PCD12478> <21582.1190820137@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1190894004.5430.46.camel@PCD12478> <29186.1190904025@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1190906166.5430.76.camel@PCD12478> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org To: Csaba Nagy User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070730) In-Reply-To: <1190906166.5430.76.camel@PCD12478> To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200709/460 X-Sequence-Number: 27005 Csaba Nagy wrote: > > Well, my problem was actually solved by rising the statistics target, Would it do more benefit than harm if postgres increased the default_statistics_target? I see a fair number of people (myself included) asking questions who's resolution was to ALTER TABLE SET STATISTICS; and I think relatively fewer (if any?) people concerned about space in pg_statistic or people improving analyze time by reducing the statistics target.