Re: RE : RE : Increase performance of a UNION query that - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Stephan Szabo
Subject Re: RE : RE : Increase performance of a UNION query that
Date
Msg-id 20040207213513.A41594@megazone.bigpanda.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE : RE : Increase performance of a UNION query that thakes 655.07 msec to be runned ?  ("Bruno BAGUETTE" <pgsql-ml@baguette.net>)
List pgsql-performance
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Bruno BAGUETTE wrote:

> > On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Bruno BAGUETTE wrote:
> >
> > > > In addition to what Tom said, the row estimates look suspiciously
> > > > default. You mention vacuuming, but do you ever analyze
> > > > the tables?
> > >
> > > I run VACUUM FULL ANALYZE with the postgres user on all the
> > > PostgreSQL
> > > databases on the server, twice a day, sometimes more.
> >
> > Wierd, because you're getting 1000 estimated on both people
> > and organizations.  What does pg_class have to say about
> > those two tables?
>
> I'm sorry but I think that I misunderstand you. Are you telling me that
> running VACUUM FULL ANALYZE is weird ? Or do you mean another thing ?

No, I was saying it's wierd that it'd be misestimating to the default
values after a vacuum full analyze.

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Bruno BAGUETTE"
Date:
Subject: RE : RE : Increase performance of a UNION query that thakes 655.07 msec to be runned ?
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Why is query selecting sequential?