From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, kavoos <kavoos(at)issn(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Estimating costs (was Functional Indices) |
Date: | 2001-05-24 02:40:38 |
Message-ID: | 26711.990672038@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> I'm not sure how common this is (long runs in a foreign key column) and it's
> probably not worth it in the general case. So, is there a column in
> pg_statistic where I can twiddle the per-tuple index-scan cost?
You could stick a phony value into the correlation datum.
> I suppose it's unlikely that there will be a VACUUM ANALYZE EVERYTHING?
The current code wants to see sorted samples. You could feed it a
complete sorted input for moderate-sized tables, but this doesn't
sound like a recipe that scales...
> We'd get better results with partial indexes anyway I think.
I'd like to see the partial-index support cranked up again, for sure.
But how does that solve your problem? I don't see the connection.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Diana Cionoiu | 2001-05-24 03:05:03 | Re: Odd "INSERT" Problems with PostgreSQL - Do YOU know? |
Previous Message | John | 2001-05-24 01:33:46 | Re: Cant get Perl Module loaded |