Re: Accounting for between table correlation - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Thomas Kellerer
Subject Re: Accounting for between table correlation
Date
Msg-id f21e04a3-33e7-caa4-6044-5931bf231b79@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Accounting for between table correlation  (Atul Kumar <akumar14871@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Accounting for between table correlation  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Re: Accounting for between table correlation  (Michael Lewis <mlewis@entrata.com>)
List pgsql-general
Atul Kumar schrieb am 15.01.2021 um 16:29:
> As per Ron, you are not supposed to ask your questions here.
>
> As According to him, we should keep on doing research on internet
> rather than asking for support directly even you have done enough
> research and until unless “Ron” won’t be satisfied you have to do
> keep on researching.

Ron's question was perfectly valid.

Missing and wrong statistics are one reason for the planner to choose a bad execution plan.

Maybe there are many "idle in transaction" sessions that prevent autovacuum from properly
analyzing those tables. Or maybe for some unknown reason autovacuum was turned off.
Or maybe they receive a lot of bulk loads which would require a manual
analyze.

So the question "are they analyzed on a regular basis" is a valid point and nowhere
did Ron say that the OP didn't do enough research. Ron was merely trying to
rule out one of the more obvious reasons.

Thomas



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: Best tools to monitor and fine tune postgres
Next
From: Laurenz Albe
Date:
Subject: Re: ldap connection parameter lookup