Re: index vs. seq scan choice?

Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> (The default statistics target is 10, which is widely considered too
>>> low --- you might find 100 more suitable.)
>
>> Does this mean that we should look into raising the default a bit?
>
> Probably ... the question is to what.
>
> The default of 10 was chosen in our usual spirit of conservatism ---
> and IIRC it was replacing code that tracked only *one* most common
> value, so it was already a factor of 10 better (and more expensive)
> than what was there before. But subsequent history suggests it's
> too small. I'm not sure I want to vote for another 10x increase by
> default, though.

Outside of longer analyze times, and slightly more space taken up by the
statistics, what is the downside? I mean in reality... what is setting
to 100 going to do to effect actual production usage of even a modest
machine?

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/