Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2020-Jun-20, Tom Lane wrote:
>> You said you'd increased the stats target for
>> objectcustomfieldvalues.objectid, but maybe the real problem is needing
>> to increase the targets for content and largecontent, in hopes of driving
>> down the estimate for how many rows w
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 03:27:32PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-Jun-20, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > I wrote:
> > > ... oh, now I see: apparently, your filter condition is such that *no*
> > > rows of the objectcustomfieldvalues table get past the filter:
> > >
> > > -> Index Sca
On 2020-Jun-20, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > ... oh, now I see: apparently, your filter condition is such that *no*
> > rows of the objectcustomfieldvalues table get past the filter:
> >
> > -> Index Scan using objectcustomfieldvalues3 on
> > objectcustomfieldvalues objectcustomf
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 02:22:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > ... oh, now I see: apparently, your filter condition is such that *no*
> > rows of the objectcustomfieldvalues table get past the filter:
> >
> > -> Index Scan using objectcustomfieldvalues3 on
> > objectcustom
I wrote:
> ... oh, now I see: apparently, your filter condition is such that *no*
> rows of the objectcustomfieldvalues table get past the filter:
>
> -> Index Scan using objectcustomfieldvalues3 on
> objectcustomfieldvalues objectcustomfieldvalues_1 (cost=0.56..807603.40
> rows=9
[ please keep the mailing list cc'd ]
Kenneth Marshall writes:
> Here are the stats for articles.id:
> 4,7,9,11,13,14,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,
> 24,25,26,32,33,34,36,40,41,42,43,44,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,99,100,101,102,106,107,108,109,113,1
>
> 14,115,116,117,118,119,120,
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 05:25:33PM -0500, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 06:10:34PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > max(objectcustomfieldvalues.objectid) = 28108423 and here is the
> > > histogram for that column:
> >
> > ... 3304313,3693956,27667772}
> >
> > Hmm, does seem like
Kenneth Marshall writes:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 06:10:34PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm, does seem like you have some outlier keys. Are any of the keys in
>> the column you're trying to join to larger than 27667772?
> The only values above 27667772? for objectid are:
Sorry, I meant the othe
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 06:10:34PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > max(objectcustomfieldvalues.objectid) = 28108423 and here is the
> > histogram for that column:
>
> ... 3304313,3693956,27667772}
>
> Hmm, does seem like you have some outlier keys. Are any of the keys in
> the column you're trying t
Kenneth Marshall writes:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 04:59:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What's the actual maximum value of objectcustomfieldvalues.objectid,
>> and how does that compare to the endpoint value in the pg_stats
>> histogram for that column? If you've got one outlier in the table,
>>
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 04:59:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Thank you for the information and suggestion. I tried bumping the
> > statistics for the
> > objectcustomfieldvalues.objectid column to 2k, 5k and 10k followed by an
> > analyze and
> > the query plan stayed the same. I also analyze
Kenneth Marshall writes:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 04:11:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The reason for such an estimation error usually is that the maximum
>> join key values recorded in pg_stats are off: the join side that is
>> going to be exhausted is the one with the smaller max join key.
>> "
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 04:11:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> It looks like the planner is being too optimistic about how quickly the
> mergejoin will end:
>
> > -> Merge Join (cost=0.71..892.64 rows=1 width=137) (actual
> > time=21165.453..21165.453 rows=0 loops=1)
> >
Kenneth Marshall writes:
> I was looking at a slow query in our CMDB that using postgresql-12.3 as its
> backend. I since I am using the pg_trgm extension elsewhere I decided to give
> it a try. To my surprise, the query plan did not change. But when I disabled
> the index scan I got the much, muc
14 matches
Mail list logo
