| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>, pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL 12.3 slow index scan chosen |
| Date: | 2020-06-22 19:27:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20200622192732.GA29072@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 2020-Jun-20, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > ... oh, now I see: apparently, your filter condition is such that *no*
> > rows of the objectcustomfieldvalues table get past the filter:
> >
> > -> Index Scan using objectcustomfieldvalues3 on objectcustomfieldvalues objectcustomfieldvalues_1 (cost=0.56..807603.40 rows=915 width=4) (actual time=21165.441..21165.441 rows=0 loops=1)
> > Filter: ((disabled = 0) AND ((largecontent ~~* '%958575%'::text) OR ((content)::text ~~* '%958575%'::text)))
> > Rows Removed by Filter: 19030904
> You said you'd increased the stats target for
> objectcustomfieldvalues.objectid, but maybe the real problem is needing
> to increase the targets for content and largecontent, in hopes of driving
> down the estimate for how many rows will pass this filter condition.
... but those on content and largecontent are unanchored conditions --
are we still able to do any cardinality analysis using those? I thought
not. Maybe a trigram search would help? See contrib/pg_trgm -- as far
as I remember that module is able to work with LIKE conditions.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kenneth Marshall | 2020-06-22 19:29:06 | Re: PostgreSQL 12.3 slow index scan chosen |
| Previous Message | Kenneth Marshall | 2020-06-20 19:55:44 | Re: PostgreSQL 12.3 slow index scan chosen |