Re: Bad plan after vacuum analyze - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Bad plan after vacuum analyze
Date
Msg-id 14301.1115840296@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Bad plan after vacuum analyze  (Guillaume Smet <guillaume_ml@smet.org>)
Responses Re: Bad plan after vacuum analyze  (Guillaume Smet <guillaume_ml@smet.org>)
List pgsql-performance
Guillaume Smet <guillaume_ml@smet.org> writes:
>> If so, can we see the pg_stats rows for the object_id and
>> parent_application_id columns?

> See attached file.

Well, those stats certainly appear to justify the planner's belief that
the indexscan needn't run very far: the one value of
parent_application_id is 1031 and this is below the smallest value of
object_id seen by analyze.  You might have better luck if you increase
the statistics target for acs_objects.object_id.  (It'd be interesting
to know what fraction of acs_objects actually does have object_id < 1032.)

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Guillaume Smet
Date:
Subject: Re: Bad plan after vacuum analyze
Next
From: Guillaume Smet
Date:
Subject: Re: Bad plan after vacuum analyze