Re: [GENERAL] how to get accurate values in pg_statistic (continued) - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [GENERAL] how to get accurate values in pg_statistic (continued)
Date
Msg-id 200309101944.h8AJiod26547@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] how to get accurate values in pg_statistic (continued)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [osdldbt-general] Re: [GENERAL] how to get accurate
List pgsql-performance
Tom Lane wrote:
> Mary Edie Meredith <maryedie@osdl.org> writes:
> > Stephan Szabo kindly responded to our earlier queries suggesting we look
> > at default_statistics_target and ALTER TABLE ALTER COLUMN SET
> > STATISTICS.
>
> > These determine the number of bins in the histogram for a given column.
> > But for a large number of rows (for example 6 million) the maximum value
> > (1000) does not guarantee that ANALYZE will do a full scan of the table.
> > We do not see a way to guarantee the same statistics run to run without
> > forcing ANALYZE to examine every row of every table.
>
> Do you actually still have a problem with the plans changing when the
> stats target is above 100 or so?  I think the notion of "force ANALYZE
> to do a full scan" is inherently wrongheaded ... it certainly would not
> produce numbers that have anything to do with ordinary practice.
>
> If you have data statistics that are so bizarre that the planner still
> gets things wrong with a target of 1000, then I'd like to know more
> about why.

Has there been any progress in determining if the number of default
buckets (10) is the best value?

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Christopher Browne
Date:
Subject: Re: Upgrade Woes
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Query too slow