Re: NestedLoops over BitmapScan question
От | Виктор Егоров |
---|---|
Тема | Re: NestedLoops over BitmapScan question |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAGnEbohb0C279Hm=o8CbDkGK2=ADVgyT0nZtjjdV=J=st6dXCQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | NestedLoops over BitmapScan question (Виктор Егоров <vyegorov@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Well, I've managed to track down the cause of improper plans. Due to the data distribution n_distinct had been estimated way too low. I've manually set it to be 195300 instead of 15500 (with stats_target=200): select tablename,attname,null_frac,avg_width,n_distinct,correlation from pg_stats where (tablename,attname) IN (VALUES ('meta_version','account_id'),('account','customer_id')); tablename | attname | null_frac | avg_width | n_distinct | correlation --------------+-------------+-----------+-----------+------------+------------- account | customer_id | 0 | 4 | 57 | 0.998553 meta_version | account_id | 0 | 4 | 195300 | 0.0262315 (2 rows) Still, optimizer underestimates rows returned by the IndexScan heavily: http://explain.depesz.com/s/pDw Is it possible to get correct estimates for the IndexScan on the right side of the NestedLoops? I assume estimation is done by the B-tree AM and it is seems to be not affected by the STATISTICS parameter of the column. 2012/9/29 Виктор Егоров <vyegorov@gmail.com>: > Now I have the following plan: > http://explain.depesz.com/s/YZJ > > Second query takes twice more time. -- Victor Y. Yegorov
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: