On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Cédric Villemain <cedric.villemain.deb...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/4/23 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: >> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Vlad Arkhipov <arhi...@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.
Well, what do you think the planner should do differently? ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
