Re: Query Plan choice with timestamps

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Giorgio Valoti <giorgio_v(at)mac(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Query Plan choice with timestamps
Date: 2008-08-07 15:50:59
Message-ID: 12707.1218124259@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Giorgio Valoti <giorgio_v(at)mac(dot)com> writes:
> GroupAggregate (cost=98431.58..119773.92 rows=74226 width=8)
> -> Sort (cost=98431.58..99050.92 rows=247736 width=8)
> Sort Key: (day_trunc(ts))
> -> Seq Scan on blackbox (cost=0.00..72848.36 rows=247736 width=8)

> GroupAggregate (cost=0.00..19109.66 rows=74226 width=8)
> -> Index Scan using test_2_idx on blackbox (cost=0.00..16943.16 rows=247736 width=8)

These numbers seem pretty bogus: there is hardly any scenario in which a
full-table indexscan should be costed as significantly cheaper than a
seqscan. Have you put in silly values for random_page_cost?

If you haven't mucked with the cost parameters, the only way I can think
of to get this result is to have an enormously bloated table that's
mostly empty. Maybe you need to review your vacuuming procedures.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Giorgio Valoti 2008-08-07 18:37:09 Re: Query Plan choice with timestamps
Previous Message Joshua Shanks 2008-08-07 15:11:43 Re: query planner not using the correct index