On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:03:52 -0400
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Manfred Koizar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:08:05 -0400, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> Try reducing random_page_cost
>
> > With index scan cost being more than 25 * seq scan cost, I guess that
> > - all other things held equal - even random_page_cost = 1 wouldn't
> > help.
>
> Oh, you're right, I was comparing the wrong estimated costs. Yeah,
> changing random_page_cost won't fix it.
>
> > Or there's something wrong with correlation?
>
> That seems like a good bet. Andre, is this table likely to be
> physically ordered by time_stamp, or nearly so? If so, do you
> expect that condition to persist, or is it just an artifact of
> a test setup?
>
Sorry forgot the pg_stat query...
SELECT * FROM pg_stats where tablename = 'tbl_traffic' and attname = 'time_stamp';
tablename | attname | null_frac | avg_width | n_distinct |
most_common_vals
|
most_common_freqs |
histogram_bounds
| correlation
-------------+------------+-----------+-----------+------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-------------
tbl_traffic | time_stamp | 0 | 8 | 104009 | {"2003-06-03
19:12:01.059625+02","2003-02-03 19:52:06.666296+01","2003-02-13
09:59:45.415763+01","2003
-02-28 18:10:28.536399+01","2003-04-11 18:09:42.30363+02","2003-04-26
20:35:50.110235+02","2003-05-03 11:09:32.991507+02","2003-05-20
09:53:51.271853+02","2003-05-21 2
0:55:59.155387+02","2003-06-02 02:38:28.823182+02"} |
{0.00133333,0.001,0.001,0.001,0.001,0.001,0.001,0.001,0.001,0.001} | {"2002-07-01
00:00:00+02","2003-02-21 01:59:
46.107696+01","2003-03-11 15:00:37.418521+01","2003-03-26
18:14:50.028972+01","2003-04-10 13:43:20.75909+02","2003-04-27
09:03:19.592213+02","2003-05-08 22:35:41.99761
6+02","2003-05-22 15:34:42.932958+02","2003-06-03 00:53:05.870782+02","2003-06-15
08:45:41.154875+02","2003-06-27 07:18:30.265868+02"} | -0.479749
(1 row)
Thanks, as
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
