On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Matthew Wakeling <matthew@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 19 May 2010, Scott Marlowe wrote: >>> >>> It's apparently estimating (wrongly) that the merge join won't have to >>> scan very much of "files" before it can stop because it finds an eid >>> value larger than any eid in the other table. So the issue here is an >>> inexact stats value for the max eid. > > I wandered if it could be something like that, but I rejected that idea, as > it obviously wasn't the real world case, and statistics should at least get > that right, if they are up to date. > >> I changed stats target to 1000 for that field and still get the bad plan. > > What do the stats say the max values are? 5277063,5423043,13843899 (I think). # select count(distinct eid) from files; count ------- 365 (1 row) # select count(*) from files; count --------- 3793748 -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
