On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> A lot of people have suggested raising our default_statistics target, >> and it has been rejected because there's some O(n^2) behavior in the >> planner, and it makes ANALYZE slower, but it's not that crazy. > > I think everyone agrees it ought to be raised. Where the rubber meets > the road is deciding just *what* to raise it to. We've got no > convincing evidence in favor of any particular value. > > If someone actually wanted to put some effort into this, I'd suggest > taking some reasonably complex benchmark (maybe TPCH or one of the DBT > series) and plotting planner runtime for each query as a function of > statistics_target, taking care to mark the breakpoints where it shifted > to a better (or worse?) plan due to having better stats.
Almost there... I have a MSA70 plugged into the DL380 I have from HP and I'm trying to find time to get my scripts updated to deal with how tools have changed over the years... I'm updating the DBT-2 (tpc-c kit) I have first Regards, Mark -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
