| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tim Kane <tim(dot)kane(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Convincing the query planner to play nice |
| Date: | 2013-08-13 16:46:49 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1yVwN=3OqsV+Z_zSkXGtw2=vD62tcOUtW=o5eAMaPcpxw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Tim Kane <tim(dot)kane(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Again, just thinking out loud here.. In a scenario where specific
> clustering isn't an option...
> I wonder if the query planner should consider the physical
> distribution/ordering of values on disk, and use that as a factor when
> applying the random_page_cost in the QEP's?
It does do that, based on the "correlation" column in pg_stats.
However, because your original random_page_cost is already very close
to seq_page_cost, this adjustment doesn't have a huge effect in your
case. I don't know how much of an effect it would have even then,
because of the range overlap issue that Tom mentions.
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brian Hirt | 2013-08-13 16:54:53 | View permission error after upgrading from 8.4 -> 9.2 |
| Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2013-08-13 16:45:39 | Re: Please help |