Re: More correlated (?) index woes - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Geoff Winkless
Subject Re: More correlated (?) index woes
Date
Msg-id CAEzk6fekz9Rx=Xi9DLVxNEuyqTv1+OWFzoASn7v1Bibe_OLU2Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to More correlated (?) index woes  (Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj>)
Responses Re: More correlated (?) index woes  (Melvin Davidson <melvin6925@gmail.com>)
Re: More correlated (?) index woes  (bricklen <bricklen@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
On 28 March 2016 at 20:23, I wrote:
Table pa has 7522676 rows, 4834042 of which have field1 NULL, so it's absolutely not reasonable to expect this to be an optimal strategy.
It occurred to me that even though the majority of values are NULL, there are ​
 
​1691 unique values in pa.field1, so I suppose it might seem more attractive to the planner than it should do (that's more unique values than there are scdate entries).

I might just set enable_seqscan to false and leave it at that. It makes me unhappy though.

Geoff


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: John R Pierce
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_largeobject
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Horrible/never returning performance using stable function on WHERE clause