Re: Poor Performance on Postgres 8.0 - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Poor Performance on Postgres 8.0
Date
Msg-id 26388.1106948064@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Poor Performance on Postgres 8.0  (Pallav Kalva <pkalva@deg.cc>)
Responses Re: Poor Performance on Postgres 8.0  (Pallav Kalva <pkalva@deg.cc>)
List pgsql-performance
Pallav Kalva <pkalva@deg.cc> writes:
> On 8
>  common     | attribute | fknamestringid |         0 |         4
> |         80 | {2524,2434,2530,2522,2525,2523,2527,2526,2574,2531} |
> {0.219333,0.199333,0.076,0.0643333,0.0616667,0.05,0.0453333,0.042,0.04,0.0286667}
> | {2437,2528,2529,2538,2539,2540,2554,2562,2575,2584,2637} |   0.0274016

Given those stats, the planner is going to estimate that about 1/80th of
the attribute table matches any particular fknamestringid, and that's
what's driving it away from using the indexscan.  I cannot tell whether
there are indeed a couple of thousand rows joining to the 'squareFeet'
string row (in which case the condition numericValue='775.0' must be
really selective) or whether this is an outlier case that joins to just
a few attribute rows.

The slightly different stats values for 7.4 would have given it a
slightly lower value for the cost of an indexscan by
idx_attribute_fknamestringid, but certainly not as low as your original
message shows.  Perhaps you have some difference in parameter settings
in your 7.4 installation --- most likely a lower random_page_cost.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Pallav Kalva
Date:
Subject: Re: Poor Performance on Postgres 8.0
Next
From: Pallav Kalva
Date:
Subject: Re: Poor Performance on Postgres 8.0