Re: Sequential Scan with LIMIT

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
Cc: John Meinel <john(at)johnmeinel(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Sequential Scan with LIMIT
Date: 2004-10-28 23:49:28
Message-ID: 9172.1099007368@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

"Jim C. Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 04:11:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The test case you are showing is probably suffering from nonrandom
>> placement of this particular data value; which is something that the
>> statistics we keep are too crude to detect.

> Isn't that exactly what pg_stats.correlation is?

No. A far-from-zero correlation gives you a clue that on average, *all*
the data values are placed nonrandomly ... but it doesn't really tell
you much one way or the other about a single data value.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2004-10-28 23:54:30 Re: Sequential Scan with LIMIT
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2004-10-28 23:46:58 Re: Sequential Scan with LIMIT