Re: Bad plan after vacuum analyze
От | Guillaume Smet |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Bad plan after vacuum analyze |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4282723C.5080903@smet.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Bad plan after vacuum analyze (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Bad plan after vacuum analyze
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Josh, Tom, Thanks for your explanations. > In the meantime it seems like the quickest answer for Guillaume might > be to try to avoid keeping any NULLs in parent_application_id. I can't do that as the majority of the applications don't have any parent one. Moreover, we use a third party application and we cannot modify all its internals. Anyway, I tried to work on the statistics as you told me and here are the results: ccm_perf=# ALTER TABLE acs_objects ALTER COLUMN object_id SET STATISTICS 30; ALTER TABLE ccm_perf=# ANALYZE acs_objects; ANALYZE ccm_perf=# \i query_section.sql ... correct plan ... Total runtime: 0.555 ms So I think I will use this solution for the moment. Thanks a lot for your help. Regards -- Guillaume
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: