Re: indexes are fucked

From: Dr NoName <spamacct11(at)yahoo(dot)com>
To: Ragnar "Hafsta" <gnari(at)simnet(dot)is>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: indexes are fucked
Date: 2005-08-02 18:24:25
Message-ID: 20050802182425.50458.qmail@web31501.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

> the seqscan is cheaper when a large enough
> proportion
> (maybe 5%) of rows are retrieved, and indeed the
> cost
> is estimated at 39014

very good explanation. thank you.

> try to increase statistics for this column:
>
> ALTER TABLE render ALTER COLUMN person_id
> SET STATISTICS 1000;
> ANALYZE render;
>
> 1000 is the maximum value, and probably overkill,
> but you might start with that. If this helps, you
> can
> try to lower values until you find the lowest one
> that still suits your data. Usually, 200 is enough.

ok, we're getting into voodoo territory. What is this
"statistics"? How can I see what the current value is?
How can I estimate what's a "good" value? Where can I
find more information about this?

thanks,

Eugene

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dr NoName 2005-08-02 18:26:56 Re: indexes are farked
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2005-08-02 18:17:26 Re: Slow Inserts on 1 table?