From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kevin Murphy <murphy(at)genome(dot)chop(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: index scan backward plan question |
Date: | 2006-03-21 23:36:56 |
Message-ID: | 6814.1142984216@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
>> -> Index Scan Backward using merged_weight_date_idx on merged
>> (cost=0.00..31295593.98 rows=141839 width=229) (actual
>> time=3.888..10380.783 rows=500 loops=1)
> The mis-estimation of the result set of the index scan is clearly a
> problem -- have you run ANALYZE recently?
I'm not sure the above is a misestimation --- the actual rowcount is
going to be restricted by the LIMIT node (which I'm betting is actually
LIMIT 50 OFFSET 450, though that's strictly a guess from the rowcounts).
It would be useful to know how many rows match the query without any
LIMIT though.
> Otherwise, please provide the queries that trigger the problem and the
> relevant schema definitions.
Yes, giving people only the EXPLAIN output without the queries or table
definitions (in particular, the available indexes) is not a recipe for
getting quality advice.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris | 2006-03-21 23:51:19 | Re: W3C XML Schema -> PostgreSQL? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-21 23:11:12 | Re: [GENERAL] A real currency type |