Henrik wrote:
> Correct. I changed the statistics to 500 in tbl_file.file_name and now the
> statistics is better. But now my big seq scan on tbl_file_Structure back
> and I don't know why.
Hmm, I think the problem here is that it needs to fetch ~200000 tuples
from tbl_file_structure one way or the other. When it misestimated the
tuples from tbl_file it thought it would only need to do the indexscan
in tbl_file_structure a few times, but now it realizes that it needs to
do it several thousands of times and it considers the seqscan to be
cheaper.
Perhaps you would benefit from a higher effective_cache_size or a lower
random_page_cost (or both).
I think this is a problem in the optimizer: it doesn't correctly take
into account the fact that the upper pages of the index are most likely
to be cached. This has been discussed a lot of times but it's not a
simple problem to fix.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/CTMLCN8V17R4
Este mail se entrega garantizadamente 100% libre de sarcasmo.
