> ># SHOW effective_cache_size ; > > effective_cache_size > >---------------------- > > 4456 > >(1 row) > > Only 35 MB? Are you testing on such a small machine?
Testing on my laptop right now... can't hack on my production DBs the same way I can my laptop. > >The stats are attached && bzip2 compressed. > > Nothing was attached. Did you upload it to your web site? Gah, not yet, forgot to send it. http://people.FreeBSD.org/~seanc/pg_statistic.txt.bz2 > >> >I can say with pretty high confidence that the patch to use a > >> >geometric mean isn't correct > > >... the problem with your patch was that it picked an index less > >often than the current code when there was low correlation. > > In cost_index.sxc I get lower estimates for *all* proposed new > interpolation methods. Either my C code doesn't implement the same > calculations as the spreadsheet, or ... > > >I manually applied bits of it [...] > > ... could this explain the unexpected behaviour? Don't think so... the run_cost was correct, I didn't modify the indexCorrelation behavior beyond forcing it to 1.0. > I'm currently downloading your dump. Can you post the query you > mentioned above? SELECT * FROM report_user_cat_count AS rucc WHERE rucc.html_bytes > 20000000::BIGINT; SELECT * FROM report_user_cat_count AS rucc WHERE user_id = 42 AND utc_date = NOW(); SELECT * FROM report_user_cat_count AS rucc WHERE user_id = 42; SELECT * FROM report_user_cat_count AS rucc WHERE user_id < 1000 AND utc_date > '2003-01-01'::TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE; And various timestamps back to 2002-09-19 and user_id's IN(1,42). -sc -- Sean Chittenden ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
