Re: Indexing for geographic objects?

On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Oleg Bartunov wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> > Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 12:19:56 -0400 (AST)
> > From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
> > To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> > Cc: Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, selkovjr(at)mcs(dot)anl(dot)gov,
> > 'pgsql-hackers ' <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Indexing for geographic objects?
> >
> >
> > just a note here ... recently, we had a client with similar problems with
> > using index scan, where turning off seqscan did the trick ... we took his
> > tables, loaded them into a v7.1beta1 server and it correctly comes up with
> > the index scan ...
> >
> > Oleg, have you tried this with v7.1 yet?
>
> Not yet. Just a plain 7.0.3 release. Will play with 7.1beta.
> But we're working in real life and need things to work in production :-)

Okay, then I believe that what you are experience wiht v7.0.3 is already
fixed in v7.1beta, based on similar results I got with some queries and
then tested uver v7.1 ...

>
> regards,
> Oleg
>
> >
> > On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> writes:
> > > > We've done some work with GiST indices and found a little problem
> > > > with optimizer.
> > >
> > > > test=# set enable_seqscan = off;
> > > > SET VARIABLE
> > > > test=# explain select * from test where s @ '1.05 .. 3.95';
> > > > NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
> > >
> > > > Index Scan using test_seg_ix on test (cost=0.00..369.42 rows=5000 width=12)
> > >
> > > > EXPLAIN
> > > > % ./bench.pl -d test -b 100 -i
> > > > total: 1.71 sec; number: 100; for one: 0.017 sec; found 18 docs
> > >
> > > I'd venture that the major problem here is bogus estimated selectivities
> > > for rtree/gist operators. Note the discrepancy between the estimated
> > > row count and the actual (I assume the "found 18 docs" is the true
> > > number of rows output by the query). With an estimated row count even
> > > half that (ie, merely two orders of magnitude away from reality ;-))
> > > the thing would've correctly chosen the index scan over sequential.
> > >
> > > 5000 looks like a suspiciously round number ... how many rows are in
> > > the table? Have you done a vacuum analyze on it?
> > >
> > > regards, tom lane
> > >
> >
> > Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
> > Systems Administrator @ hub.org
> > primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org
> >
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
> Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
> Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
> phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
>
>

Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org