Re: Missed index opportunity for outer join?

From: Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Missed index opportunity for outer join?
Date: 2005-12-06 21:15:13
Message-ID: 4395FF61.6060301@cheapcomplexdevices.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Tom Lane wrote:
> ...planner is actually going to choose based on the ultimate join cost,
> not on the subplan costs...
>
> In this explanation, the reason for the change in plans over time could
> be a change in the statistics for the other table. Is "facets" more
> dynamic than "point_features"?

In total rows changing it's more dynamic, but percentage-wise, it's
less dynamic (point_features probably turns round 50% of it's rows
in a day -- while facets turns over about 3% per day -- but facets
is 1000X larger).

Facets is a big table with rather odd distributions of values.
Many of the values in the indexed columns show up only
once, others show up hundreds-of-thousands of times. Perhaps
an analyze ran and just randomly sampled differently creating
different stats on that table?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-12-06 21:20:57 Re: postgresql performance tuning
Previous Message Michael Riess 2005-12-06 21:02:05 Re: postgresql performance tuning