Re: Why is explain horribly optimistic for sorts?
От | Ben |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why is explain horribly optimistic for sorts? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.10.10103031024290.19743-100000@gilgamesh.eos.SilentMedia.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Why is explain horribly optimistic for sorts? (Ben <bench@silentmedia.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Why is explain horribly optimistic for sorts?
|
Список | pgsql-general |
After enabling the new likeplanning code, things only get worse... the estimated cost for the same query is now: Sort (cost=4.95..4.95 rows=1 width=136) -> Index Scan using jennyann_target_key on jennyann (cost=0.00..4.94 rows=1 width=136) So this doesn't really seem to help much. :) Out of curiosity, why does it take so long to order data by a datetime field? On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Tom Lane wrote: > Ben <bench@silentmedia.com> writes: > > Yes, it is horribly wrong. > > select count(*) FROM jennyann where target like '/music/%' > > gives me 93686 rows. > > Well, that misestimation is the source of the problem, then, not any > misestimation of the cost of a sort. > > 7.0 didn't have very good estimation rules for LIKE clauses, at least > not by default. Have you tried the new LIKE estimator (see > contrib/likeplanning/README in the source tree)? I'm not sure it will > do any better, given that your data appears to be mightily nonuniform > ;-), but it's worth a try. > > regards, tom lane >
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: