On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Patrik Kudo wrote:
> Stephan Szabo wrote:
> >>explain delete from login where userid = 'jennie';
> >> QUERY PLAN
> >>-----------------------------------------------------------
> >> Seq Scan on login (cost=0.00..2045.30 rows=3421 width=6)
> >> Filter: (userid = 'jennie'::text)
> >>
> >
> > Well at 3421 of 96824 it's estimating that the cost is lower, what's
> > the explain look like with seqscan turned off (my guess'd be it's
> > slightly higher cost). It's possible that random_page_cost should
>
> Yepp! You're right. The cost is higher:
>
> set enable_seqscan to off;
> explain delete from login where userid = 'jennie';
> QUERY PLAN
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Index Scan using login_userid_idx on login (cost=0.00..3363.71
> rows=4131 width=6)
> Index Cond: (userid = 'jennie'::text)
>
> If I lower the random_page_cost to about 2 the index is being used
> instead of seq scan. Is it reasonable to have such a setting on a
> production server? random_page_cost = 2 is good for this particular
> query, but could it have negative effect on other queries?
It's possible since it might make other queries use an index when the
sequence scan is better. It's probably worth doing some testing with the
setting.
>
> > be lower, or that perhaps there's some level of clustering in the data
> > that's not being picked up. You might want to try raising the
> > number of statistics buckets and re-analyzing just to see if that helps.
>
> I'm afraid I'm a bit too new at this kind of tweaking... do you mean the
> "default_statistics_target"? In that case I tried to raise it from the
> default 10 to as high as 45, but without any other result than vacuum
> analyze being slower. Did I understand your suggestion right?
I'd thought about doing it with ALTER TABLE ALTER COLUMN SET STATISTICS,
but I would think that it would probably have worked with default as well.
Is it possible that the data has local clustering on the field (many
rows with the same value stuck together) while not being terribly ordered
overall? That's a case that the statistics don't really cover right now
(there have been some discussions of this in the past)
