From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: *very* slow query to summarize data for a month ... |
Date: | 2003-11-10 23:42:09 |
Message-ID: | 16200.1068507729@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> Interesting that we get the row count estimate for this index scan so
> wrong -- I believe this is the root of the problem. Hmmm... I would
> guess that the optimizer stats we have for estimating the selectivity
> of a functional index is pretty primitive, but I haven't looked into
> it at all. Tom might be able to shed some light...
Try "none at all". I have speculated in the past that it would be worth
gathering statistics about the contents of functional indexes, but it's
still on the to-do-someday list.
>> -> Seq Scan on traffic_logs ts (cost=0.00..38340.72 rows=8213 width=16) (actual time=5.02..-645982.04 rows=462198 loops=1)
> Uh, what?
That is bizarre, all right. Is it reproducible?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2003-11-11 00:19:56 | Re: *very* slow query to summarize data for a month ... |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2003-11-10 23:15:41 | Re: *very* slow query to summarize data for a month ... |