From: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
---|---|
To: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, selkovjr(at)mcs(dot)anl(dot)gov, "'pgsql-hackers '" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Indexing for geographic objects? |
Date: | 2000-12-08 17:45:09 |
Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.3.96.SK.1001208204249.4174Z-100000@ra |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
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 :-)
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2000-12-08 17:47:52 | Re: [HACKERS] Trip to Japan |
Previous Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2000-12-08 17:41:32 | Re: Indexing for geographic objects? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2000-12-08 17:47:52 | Re: [HACKERS] Trip to Japan |
Previous Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2000-12-08 17:41:32 | Re: Indexing for geographic objects? |