Re: Indexing for geographic objects? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Oleg Bartunov |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Indexing for geographic objects? |
Date | |
Msg-id | Pine.GSO.3.96.SK.1001208204249.4174Z-100000@ra Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Indexing for geographic objects? (The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>) |
Responses |
Re: Indexing for geographic objects?
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 12:19:56 -0400 (AST) > From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> > To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> > Cc: Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>, selkovjr@mcs.anl.gov, > 'pgsql-hackers ' <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Indexing for geographic objects? > > > just a note here ... recently, we had a client with similar problems with > using index scan, where turning off seqscan did the trick ... we took his > tables, loaded them into a v7.1beta1 server and it correctly comes up with > the index scan ... > > Oleg, have you tried this with v7.1 yet? Not yet. Just a plain 7.0.3 release. Will play with 7.1beta. But we're working in real life and need things to work in production :-) regards, Oleg > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su> writes: > > > We've done some work with GiST indices and found a little problem > > > with optimizer. > > > > > test=# set enable_seqscan = off; > > > SET VARIABLE > > > test=# explain select * from test where s @ '1.05 .. 3.95'; > > > NOTICE: QUERY PLAN: > > > > > Index Scan using test_seg_ix on test (cost=0.00..369.42 rows=5000 width=12) > > > > > EXPLAIN > > > % ./bench.pl -d test -b 100 -i > > > total: 1.71 sec; number: 100; for one: 0.017 sec; found 18 docs > > > > I'd venture that the major problem here is bogus estimated selectivities > > for rtree/gist operators. Note the discrepancy between the estimated > > row count and the actual (I assume the "found 18 docs" is the true > > number of rows output by the query). With an estimated row count even > > half that (ie, merely two orders of magnitude away from reality ;-)) > > the thing would've correctly chosen the index scan over sequential. > > > > 5000 looks like a suspiciously round number ... how many rows are in > > the table? Have you done a vacuum analyze on it? > > > > regards, tom lane > > > > Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy > Systems Administrator @ hub.org > primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org > _____________________________________________________________ Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet, Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia) Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/ phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
pgsql-hackers by date: