From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
Cc: | "Daniel Kalchev" <daniel(at)digsys(dot)bg>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: again on index usage |
Date: | 2002-01-10 15:07:11 |
Message-ID: | 20478.1010675231@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> writes:
> I cannot really see how 284 rows can have an estimated index cost of 100506 ?
The estimated number of indexscanned rows is more like 50k. The number
you are looking at includes the estimated selectivity of the
non-indexable WHERE clauses, too.
> What is actually estimated wrong here seems to be the estimated
> effective cache size, and thus the cache ratio of page fetches.
Good point, but I think the estimates are only marginally sensitive
to estimated cache size (if they're not, we have a problem, considering
how poorly we can estimate the kernel's disk buffer size). It would
be interesting for Daniel to try a few different settings of
effective_cache_size and see how much the EXPLAIN costs change.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-10 15:27:45 | Re: seq scan startup cost |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-10 15:03:10 | Re: again on index usage |