Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE35B9FB953 for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 00:26:45 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 16342-01 for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 00:26:33 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B1E09FB9C4 for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 00:26:32 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l4P3Q8H9000116; Thu, 24 May 2007 23:26:09 -0400 (EDT) To: "Joshua D. Drake" cc: Alvaro Herrera , George Pavlov , pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: index vs. seq scan choice? In-reply-to: <46565086.2040705@commandprompt.com> References: <8C5B026B51B6854CBE88121DBF097A86C3A30D@ehost010-33.exch010.intermedia.net> <27828.1180055291@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20070525023922.GV4320@alvh.no-ip.org> <29662.1180061117@sss.pgh.pa.us> <46565086.2040705@commandprompt.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Joshua D. Drake" message dated "Thu, 24 May 2007 19:57:10 -0700" Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 23:26:08 -0400 Message-ID: <115.1180063568@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200705/1236 X-Sequence-Number: 114430 "Joshua D. Drake" writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm not sure I want to vote for another 10x increase by >> default, though. > Outside of longer analyze times, and slightly more space taken up by the > statistics, what is the downside? Longer plan times --- several of the selfuncs.c routines grovel over all the entries in the pg_statistic row. AFAIK no one's measured the real impact of that, but it could easily be counterproductive for simple queries. regards, tom lane