On 05/11/2011 06:08 AM, Prodan, Andrei wrote:
Index Scan using attr_name_value on big_table (cost=0.00..22.85
rows=4 width=7) (actual time=0.176..757.646 rows=914786 loops=1)
Holy inaccurate statistics, Batman!
Try increasing your statistics target for attr_name and attr_value in
your big table. I know you said you set it to 300 on party_id, but what
happened here is that the optimizer thought this particular name/value
combo in your big table would return less rows, and it was horribly,
horribly wrong.
You might think about bumping up your default_statistics_target anyway
to prevent problems like this in general. But definitely increase it on
those two columns and reanalyze. My guess is that your big_table is big
enough that each analyze gets a different random sample of the various
attr_name and attr_value combinations, so occasionally it'll get too few
and start badly skewing query plans.
--
Shaun Thomas
OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 800 | Chicago IL, 60604
312-676-8870
stho...@peak6.com
______________________________________________
See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer.php
for terms and conditions related to this email
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
