Kenneth Marshall <ktm@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think this is it: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-01/msg00021.php Looks like it. Based on the commit date, that would be a 9.0 change. Based on the description, I'm not sure it fixes Derrick's problem; the workaround of explicitly using min() for the low end of a range may need to be a long-term approach. It does seem odd, though, that the statistics would be off by that much. Unless the query is run immediately after a mass delete, autovacuum should be fixing that. Perhaps the autovacuum improvements in later releases will solve the problem. If not, an explicit ANALYZE (or perhaps better, VACUUM ANALYZE) immediately after a mass delete would be wise. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
