From: | Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Claus Guttesen <kometen(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Wrong plan sequential scan instead of an index one |
Date: | 2007-03-30 10:46:11 |
Message-ID: | 20070330104611.GA1540@winnie.fuhr.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 12:08:26PM +0200, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> Claus Guttesen wrote:
> > Try changing random_page_cost from the default 4 to 2 in postgresql.conf:
> >
> > random_page_cost = 2
>
> I have tuned that number already at 2.5, lowering it to 2 doesn't change
> the plan.
The following 19-fold overestimate is influencing the rest of the
plan:
-> Seq Scan on l_pvcp (cost=0.00..2.17 rows=19 width=4) (actual time=0.066..0.081 rows=1 loops=1)
Filter: (value ~~* '%pi%'::text)
Have you tried increasing the statistics target on l_pvcp.value?
I ran your queries against canned data in 8.2.3 and better statistics
resulted in more accurate row count estimates for this and other
parts of the plan. I don't recall if estimates for non-leading-character
matches in earlier versions can benefit from better statistics.
--
Michael Fuhr
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2007-03-30 10:55:34 | Re: Wrong plan sequential scan instead of an index one |
Previous Message | ismo.tuononen | 2007-03-30 10:43:53 | Re: Wrong plan sequential scan instead of an index one |