From: | "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Better default_statistics_target |
Date: | 2008-02-03 18:52:33 |
Message-ID: | ef95a1e9cc91b61000e72c2b941b0312@biglumber.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
> As Tom stated it earlier, the ANALYZE slow down is far from being the
> only consequence. The planner will also have more work to do and
> that's the hard point IMHO.
>
> Without studying the impacts of this change on a large set of queries
> in different cases, it's quite hard to know for sure that it won't
> have a negative impact in a lot of cases.
>
> It's a bit too late in the cycle to change that IMHO, especially
> without any numbers.
The decision to add the magic "99/100" number was made without any
such analysis either, and I can assure you it has caused lots of real-world
problems. Going from 10 to 100 adds a small amount of planner overhead. The
99/100 change adds an order of magnitude speed difference to SELECT queries.
I still cannot see that as anything other than a major performance regression.
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200802032259
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iD8DBQFHpo3jvJuQZxSWSsgRA61dAJ4hglXzi/EQT08j/NSWl8UeqI9CigCcDxSs
ob//pk7+jTCWPKlssAYKmy8=
=VKhG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2008-02-03 19:41:09 | Re: FW: bitemporal functionality for PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2008-02-03 18:34:57 | Re: Truncate Triggers |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | mac_man2005 | 2008-02-04 18:10:10 | 2WRS [WIP] |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-02-03 16:02:40 | Re: Proposed patch for bug #3921 |