To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
cc: George Pavlov <gpavlov@mynewplace.com>, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] index vs. seq scan choice? 
In-Reply-To: <20070525023922.GV4320@alvh.no-ip.org> 
References: 
 <8C5B026B51B6854CBE88121DBF097A86C3A30D@ehost010-33.exch010.intermedia.net>
	<27828.1180055291@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20070525023922.GV4320@alvh.no-ip.org>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
	message dated "Thu, 24 May 2007 22:39:22 -0400"
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 22:45:17 -0400
Message-ID: <29662.1180061117@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
Status: RO

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> (The default statistics target is 10, which is widely considered too
>> low --- you might find 100 more suitable.)

> Does this mean that we should look into raising the default a bit?

Probably ... the question is to what.

The default of 10 was chosen in our usual spirit of conservatism ---
and IIRC it was replacing code that tracked only *one* most common
value, so it was already a factor of 10 better (and more expensive)
than what was there before.  But subsequent history suggests it's
too small.  I'm not sure I want to vote for another 10x increase by
default, though.

			regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly


--ELM1205260229-7949-1_--