| From: | Rémi Chatenay <remi(dot)chatenay(at)doctolib(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Lewis <mlewis(at)entrata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Adam Brusselback <adambrusselback(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Pgsql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: How to deal with analyze gathering irrelevant stats |
| Date: | 2021-01-11 16:52:25 |
| Message-ID: | CAA==ddmtauVVQf1xcnynkqEBNprn_O3HAfgJdk=2Ox9GFGUEOw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
I'd say it's a 1 insert for 5 - 10 updates.
As for the index on the status, it's because we have a job that runs every
night that deals with conversations in specific statuses. Having a low
cardinality index that changes frequently seems prone to mis-use by the
system. -> What would be an alternative ?
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 5:48 PM Michael Lewis <mlewis(at)entrata(dot)com> wrote:
> What is the usage pattern of the conversations table? Is getting many
> inserts during the day, or updates of status mostly?
>
> Why have an index on the status column at all? My guess would be that
> there are 2-10 statuses, but many many rows in the table for most of those
> statuses. Having a low cardinality index that changes frequently seems
> prone to mis-use by the system.
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Lewis | 2021-01-11 18:26:58 | Re: How to deal with analyze gathering irrelevant stats |
| Previous Message | Michael Lewis | 2021-01-11 16:47:36 | Re: How to deal with analyze gathering irrelevant stats |