From: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Optimizer generates bad plans. |
Date: | 2002-09-20 18:45:46 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0209201440090.25412-100000@leary.csoft.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Kris Jurka wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Kris Jurka <jurka(at)ejurka(dot)com> writes:
> > > While adding schema support to the JDBC Driver, I came across a query
> > > which occasionally generates some spectacularly bad plans.
> >
> > Hm, does an ANALYZE help?
> >
>
> Yes, it does, but I don't understand why. The query is entirely against
> pg_catalog tables which have had all of three tables added to them. How
> can the new ANALYZE stats be significantly different than what came from
> the ANALYZED template1.
>
> Kris Jurka
>
Looking at the differences in statistics before and after the ANALYZE the
only differences are in correlation. This comes from initdb around line
1046...
"$PGPATH"/postgres $PGSQL_OPT template1 >/dev/null <<EOF
ANALYZE;
VACUUM FULL FREEZE;
EOF
Could this be done better in the one step VACUUM FULL FREEZE ANALYZE or
ANALYZING after the VACUUM FULL?
Kris Jurka
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-09-20 19:24:00 | Re: [PATCHES] to_char(FM9.9) bug fix |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-09-20 18:28:15 | Re: Improving speed of copy |