John Siracusa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Obviously the planner is making some bad choices here.
A fair conclusion ...
I know that it is trying to avoid random seeks or other scary things
implied by a correlation statistic that is not close to 1 or -1, but
it is massively overestimating the
On 1/5/04 1:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
John Siracusa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Obviously the planner is making some bad choices here.
A fair conclusion ...
I know that it is trying to avoid random seeks or other scary things
implied by a correlation statistic that is not close to 1 or -1, but
John Siracusa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is there any way to uncluster a table? Should I just cluster it on a
different column?
That should work, if you choose one that's uncorrelated with the
previous clustering attribute.
regards, tom lane
After a long battle with technology, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Siracusa), an earthling,
wrote:
On 1/5/04 1:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
John Siracusa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Obviously the planner is making some bad choices here.
A fair conclusion ...
I know that it is trying to avoid random
On 1/5/04 11:45 AM, Christopher Browne wrote:
It sounds to me as though the statistics that are being collected
aren't good enough. That tends to be a sign that the quantity of
statistics (e.g. - bins in the histogram) are insufficient.
This would be resolved by changing the number of bins
In the last exciting episode, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Siracusa) wrote:
What column(s) should I increase? Do I have to do anything after increasing
the statistics, or do I just wait for the stats collector to do its thing?
You have to ANALYZE the table again, to force in new statistics.
And if
