From: | "William N(dot) Zanatta" <william(at)veritel(dot)com(dot)br> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Help on query plan. |
Date: | 2003-01-21 18:18:11 |
Message-ID: | 3E2D8EE3.2010400@veritel.com.br |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
>
> Try like 50 or 100. Also, does the EXPLAIN result change with the
> higher correlation figures? I'd expect estimated cost of indexscan
> to drop with higher correlation.
>
> If you dig into the pghackers archives you will find some discussions
> about changing the equation used for adjusting indexscan based on
> correlation. I suspect the real solution to your problem will be to
> alter the equation. But I'm curious about whether we have reliable
> stats, first...
>
Don't know what happened. Now it only shows me Index Scans, even if
it set the stats values back to 10 or less (tried 0 too). It's just
showing up Index Scans for that query.
Now, I'm confused... =/
what could have happened?
william
--
Perl combines all of the worst aspects of BASIC, C and line noise.
-- Keith Packard
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Jenkins | 2003-01-21 18:25:52 | Re: PL/Python |
Previous Message | ara howard | 2003-01-21 18:08:26 | Re: postmaster.pid |