From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: merge join killing performance |
Date: | 2010-05-20 02:04:18 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTilruHtb1cc-TwN_bPVypkhIQo7p8I0y7035xLZ-@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2010, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>>>
>>> It's apparently estimating (wrongly) that the merge join won't have to
>>> scan very much of "files" before it can stop because it finds an eid
>>> value larger than any eid in the other table. So the issue here is an
>>> inexact stats value for the max eid.
>
> I wandered if it could be something like that, but I rejected that idea, as
> it obviously wasn't the real world case, and statistics should at least get
> that right, if they are up to date.
>
>> I changed stats target to 1000 for that field and still get the bad plan.
>
> What do the stats say the max values are?
5277063,5423043,13843899 (I think).
# select count(distinct eid) from files;
count
-------
365
(1 row)
# select count(*) from files;
count
---------
3793748
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-05-20 02:06:15 | Re: merge join killing performance |
Previous Message | Matthew Wakeling | 2010-05-20 01:46:29 | Re: merge join killing performance |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-05-20 02:06:15 | Re: merge join killing performance |
Previous Message | Matthew Wakeling | 2010-05-20 01:46:29 | Re: merge join killing performance |