2010/4/23 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Vlad Arkhipov <arhipov@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I don't think this is just an issue with statistics, because the same >> problem arises when I try executing a query like this: > > I'm not sure how you think this proves that it isn't a problem with > statistics, but I think what you should be focusing on here, looking > back to your original email, is that the plans that are actually much > faster have almost as much estimated cost as the slower one. Since > all your data is probably fully cached, at a first cut, I might try > setting random_page_cost and seq_page_cost to 0.005 or so, and > adjusting effective_cache_size to something appropriate. that will help worrect the situation, but the planner is loosing here I think. > > ...Robert > > -- > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance > -- Cédric Villemain -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
