public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: George Pavlov <[email protected]>
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: index vs. seq scan choice?
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 14:56:06 -0700
Message-ID: <8C5B026B51B6854CBE88121DBF097A86DEA6B4@ehost010-33.exch010.intermedia.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <8C5B026B51B6854CBE88121DBF097A86C3A30D@ehost010-33.exch010.intermedia.net>
	<[email protected]>

> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[email protected]] 
> "George Pavlov" <[email protected]> writes:
> > I am curious what could make the PA query to ignore the 
> index. What are
> > the specific stats that are being used to make this decision?
> 
> you don't have the column's statistics target set high enough to
> track all the interesting values --- or maybe just not high enough to
> acquire sufficiently accurate frequency estimates for them.  
> Take a look at the pg_stats row for the column ...
> 
> (The default statistics target is 10, which is widely considered too
> low --- you might find 100 more suitable.)

Well, it seems that it would be more beneficial for me to set it LOWER
than the default 10. I get better performance if the stats are less
accurate because then the optimizer seems more likely to choose the
index! States that are in pg_stats.most_common_vals most often result in
a Seq Scan, whereas ones that are not in it definitely get the Index
Scan. For all states, even the largest ones (15% of the data), the Index
Scan performs better. So, for example, with SET STATISTICS 10 my
benhcmark query in a state like Indiana (2981 rows, ~3% of total) runs
in 132ms. If I SET STATISTICS 100, Indiana gets on the most_common_vals
list for the column and the query does a Seq Scan and its run time jumps
to 977ms! If I go the other way and SET STATISTICS 1 (or 0) I can bring
down the list to one entry (setting to 0 seems equivalent and still
keeps the one most common entry!?) and I will get the Index scan for all
states except for that one most common state. But, of course, I don't
want to undermine the whole stats mechanism, I just want the system to
use the index that is so helpful and brings runtimes down by a factor of
4-8! What am I missing here?

George

view thread (17+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

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: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: index vs. seq scan choice?
  In-Reply-To: <8C5B026B51B6854CBE88121DBF097A86DEA6B4@ehost010-33.exch010.intermedia.net>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox