Message-ID: <50C904DB.9090305@dunslane.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 17:27:39 -0500
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:15.0) Gecko/20120827 Thunderbird/15.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@redhat.com>
CC: pgsql-perform <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: encouraging index-only scans
References: <50C8F1EC.9010801@dunslane.net> <15321.1355347953@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<50C90154.8060103@dunslane.net>
In-Reply-To: <50C90154.8060103@dunslane.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org


On 12/12/2012 05:12 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 12/12/2012 04:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>>> A client is testing a migration from 9.1 to 9.2, and has found that a
>>> large number of queries run much faster if they use index-only scans.
>>> However, the only way he has found to get such a plan is by increasing
>>> the seq_page_cost to insanely high levels (3.5). Is there any approved
>>> way to encourage such scans that's a but less violent than this?
>> Is the pg_class.relallvisible estimate for the table realistic? They
>> might need a few more VACUUM and ANALYZE cycles to get it into the
>> neighborhood of reality, if not.
>
> That was the problem - I didn't know this hadn't been done.
>

Actually, the table had been analysed but not vacuumed, so this kinda 
begs the question what will happen to this value on pg_upgrade? Will 
people's queries suddenly get slower until autovacuum kicks in on the table?

cheers

andrew


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance