| From: | Alexander Staubo <alex(at)bengler(dot)no> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bad query plan with high-cardinality column |
| Date: | 2013-02-22 21:34:21 |
| Message-ID: | D0D7098559DD470B9C2DE753E74B83E4@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Friday, February 22, 2013 at 21:47 , Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I suspect you would be better off without those two indexes, and
> instead having an index on (conversation_id, created_at). Not just
> for the query you show, but in general.
Indeed, that solved it, thanks!
> In my experience these problems come largely from the planner not
> knowing the cost of dealing with each tuple. I see a lot less of
> this if I raise cpu_tuple_cost to something in the 0.03 to 0.05
> range.
Is this something I can just frob a bit without worrying about it adversely impacting database performance across the board, or should I be very careful and do lots of testing on a staging box first?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-02-22 22:17:54 | Re: Bad query plan with high-cardinality column |
| Previous Message | Alexander Staubo | 2013-02-22 21:31:48 | Re: Bad query plan with high-cardinality column |