Rob Nagler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are there plans for explicit hints to the planner?
Personally, I'm philosophically opposed to planner hints; see previous
discussions in the archives.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)-
Hi,
Estimated and actual rows differ a lot. Did you a VACUUM ANALYZE so
that the optimizer could update its statistics?
Also it would be great if you could provide more information, as your
PostgreSQL version, your table and indexes descriptions, etc. Have a
look at:
ht
Tom Lane writes:
> Keep in mind though that you seem to be experimenting with a
> fully-cached database; you may find that the planner's beliefs more
> nearly approach reality when actual I/O has to occur.
My hope is that the entire database should fit in memory. This may
not be in the case right
Ron Johnson writes:
> Dumb question: given your out-of-the-box satisfaction, could it be
> that postgresql.conf hasn't been tweaked?
Here are the modified values:
shared_buffers = 8000
wal_buffers = 80
sort_mem = 32000
effective_cache_size = 40
random_page_cost = 4
autocommit = false
timezone
