From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: get_actual_variable_range vs idx_scan/idx_tup_fetch |
Date: | 2014-10-18 03:03:04 |
Message-ID: | 30577.1413601384@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 06:15:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Those stats were perfectly valid: what the planner is looking for is
>> accurate minimum and maximum values for the index's leading column, and
>> that's what it got. You're correct that a narrower index could have given
>> the same results with a smaller disk footprint, but the planner got the
>> results it needed from the index you provided for it to work with.
> Uh, why is the optimizer looking at the index on a,b,c and not just the
> stats on column a, for example? I am missing something here.
Because it needs up-to-date min/max values in order to avoid being
seriously misled about selectivities of values near the endpoints.
See commit 40608e7f949fb7e4025c0ddd5be01939adc79eec.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-10-18 03:16:08 | Re: get_actual_variable_range vs idx_scan/idx_tup_fetch |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-10-18 02:30:01 | Re: get_actual_variable_range vs idx_scan/idx_tup_fetch |