Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 06:15:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Those stats were perfectly valid: what the planner is looking for is
>> accurate minimum and maximum values for the index's leading column, and
>> that's what it got. You're correct that a narrower index could have given
>> the same results with a smaller disk footprint, but the planner got the
>> results it needed from the index you provided for it to work with.
> Uh, why is the optimizer looking at the index on a,b,c and not just the
> stats on column a, for example? I am missing something here.
Because it needs up-to-date min/max values in order to avoid being
seriously misled about selectivities of values near the endpoints.
See commit 40608e7f949fb7e4025c0ddd5be01939adc79eec.
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
