Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes:
> On 5/5/09 9:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, it's intentional.
> Huh? Why would we want wrong stats?
Tables rarely stay empty; and a plan generated on the assumption that a
table is empty is likely to suck much more when the table stops being
empty than a plan generated on the assumption that the table contains
some data will suck when it really doesn't. Neither case is really
attractive, but the downside of a size underestimate tends to be a
lot worse than that of an overestimate.
This decision was made before we had autovacuum/autoanalyze support
or the ability to replan automatically after a stats update, but I think
it's still good even now that we do. You can add a hundred or so tuples
to an empty table before autovac will deign to pay attention, and that's
more than enough to blow a nestloop plan out of the water. Also, the
most common case for this type of issue is a temp table, which autovac
can't help with at all.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
