Re: More correlated (?) index woes

From: Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin(at)geoff(dot)dj>
To: Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: More correlated (?) index woes
Date: 2016-03-29 10:47:40
Message-ID: CAEzk6fekz9Rx=Xi9DLVxNEuyqTv1+OWFzoASn7v1Bibe_OLU2Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 28 March 2016 at 20:23, I wrote:

> Table pa has 7522676 rows, 4834042 of which have field1 NULL, so it's
> absolutely not reasonable to expect this to be an optimal strategy.
> ​
>
It occurred to me that even though the majority of values are NULL, there
are ​

​1691 unique values in pa.field1, so I suppose it might seem more
attractive to the planner than it should do (that's more unique values than
there are scdate entries).

I might just set enable_seqscan to false and leave it at that. It makes me
unhappy though.

Geoff


In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2016-03-29 11:04:15 Re: Horrible/never returning performance using stable function on WHERE clause
Previous Message John R Pierce 2016-03-29 09:35:01 Re: pg_largeobject