From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Dimitri <dimitrik(dot)fr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |
Date: | 2009-05-11 19:03:28 |
Message-ID: | 1242068608.3843.161.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 11:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dimitri <dimitrik(dot)fr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Anyone may explain me why analyze target may have so huge negative
> > secondary effect?..
>
> If these are simple queries, maybe what you're looking at is the
> increase in planning time caused by having to process 10x as much
> statistical data. Cranking statistics_target to the max just because
> you can is not necessarily a good strategy.
statistics_target effects tables, so we have problems if you have a mix
of simple and complex queries. IMHO we need an explicit planner_effort
control, rather than the more arcane *_limit knobs which are effectively
the same thing, just harder to use in practice.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2009-05-11 19:46:15 | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-05-11 18:26:54 | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |