From: | "Tim Jones" <TJones(at)optio(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: strange query behavior |
Date: | 2006-12-14 19:18:55 |
Message-ID: | 47668A1334CDBF46927C1A0DFEB223D39F7C5D@mail.optiosoftware.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
ok thanks Tom I will alter the statistics and re-analyze the table.
Tim Jones
Healthcare Project Manager
Optio Software, Inc.
(770) 576-3555
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 12:49 PM
To: Tim Jones
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] strange query behavior
"Tim Jones" <TJones(at)optio(dot)com> writes:
> 18,273,008 rows in observationresults
> [ and n_distinct = 12942 ]
OK, so the estimated rowcounts are coming from those two numbers.
It's notoriously hard to get a decent n_distinct estimate from a small
sample :-(, and I would imagine the number of batteryidentifiers is
really a lot more than 12942?
What you need to do is increase the statistics target for
observationresults.batteryidentifier (see ALTER TABLE) and re-ANALYZE
and see if you get a saner n_distinct in pg_stats. I'd try 100 and then
1000 as target. Or you could just increase the global default target
(see postgresql.conf) but that might be overkill.
It's still a bit odd that the case with two batteryidentifiers was
estimated fairly accurately when the other wasn't; I'll go look into
that. But in any case you need better stats if you want good plans.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ron | 2006-12-14 19:28:42 | Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations |
Previous Message | Alexander Staubo | 2006-12-14 19:14:03 | Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations |