Re: Optimization idea
От | Cédric Villemain |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Optimization idea |
Дата | |
Msg-id | q2ne94e14cd1004230609u9596f80ve2d126430be8cd86@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Optimization idea (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Optimization idea
Re: Optimization idea |
Список | pgsql-performance |
2010/4/23 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>: > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Vlad Arkhipov <arhipov@dc.baikal.ru> wrote: >> I don't think this is just an issue with statistics, because the same >> problem arises when I try executing a query like this: > > I'm not sure how you think this proves that it isn't a problem with > statistics, but I think what you should be focusing on here, looking > back to your original email, is that the plans that are actually much > faster have almost as much estimated cost as the slower one. Since > all your data is probably fully cached, at a first cut, I might try > setting random_page_cost and seq_page_cost to 0.005 or so, and > adjusting effective_cache_size to something appropriate. that will help worrect the situation, but the planner is loosing here I think. > > ...Robert > > -- > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance > -- Cédric Villemain
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: