Re: Accounting for between table correlation

From: Thomas Kellerer <shammat(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Accounting for between table correlation
Date: 2021-01-15 16:10:01
Message-ID: f21e04a3-33e7-caa4-6044-5931bf231b79@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Atul Kumar schrieb am 15.01.2021 um 16:29:
> As per Ron, you are not supposed to ask your questions here.
>
> As According to him, we should keep on doing research on internet
> rather than asking for support directly even you have done enough
> research and until unless “Ron” won’t be satisfied you have to do
> keep on researching.

Ron's question was perfectly valid.

Missing and wrong statistics are one reason for the planner to choose a bad execution plan.

Maybe there are many "idle in transaction" sessions that prevent autovacuum from properly
analyzing those tables. Or maybe for some unknown reason autovacuum was turned off.
Or maybe they receive a lot of bulk loads which would require a manual
analyze.

So the question "are they analyzed on a regular basis" is a valid point and nowhere
did Ron say that the OP didn't do enough research. Ron was merely trying to
rule out one of the more obvious reasons.

Thomas

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Laurenz Albe 2021-01-15 16:20:32 Re: ldap connection parameter lookup
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2021-01-15 16:06:18 Re: Best tools to monitor and fine tune postgres