2009/8/27 Gaël Le Mignot :
> The weird thing was that with the default of 100 for statistics
> target, it was worse than when we moved back to 10. So I didn't try
> with 1000, but I should have.
When you have so much data and a statistics target so low, you can't
expect the sample taken
Hello Guillaume!
Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:59:25 +0200, you wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> g...@pilotsystems.net (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBl?= Le Mignot) writes:
>>> So it seems it was quite wrong about estimated matching rows (192
>>> predicted, 10222 reals).
>>
>> Yu
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> g...@pilotsystems.net (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBl?= Le Mignot) writes:
>> So it seems it was quite wrong about estimated matching rows (192 predicted,
>> 10222 reals).
>
> Yup. What's even more interesting is that it seems the real win would
> have be
g...@pilotsystems.net (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBl?= Le Mignot) writes:
> So it seems it was quite wrong about estimated matching rows (192 predicted,
> 10222 reals).
Yup. What's even more interesting is that it seems the real win would
have been to use just the 'claude & duviau' condition (which appa
Hello Guillaume!
Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:49:05 +0200, you wrote:
> Hi Gaël,
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Gaël Le Mignot wrote:
>> With 8.3 ::
>>
>> Limit (cost=752.67..752.67 rows=1 width=24)
>> (11 rows)
>>
>> With 8.4 ::
>> (8 rows)
> Could you provide us the EXPLAIN *ANALYZ
Hi Gaël,
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Gaël Le Mignot wrote:
> With 8.3 ::
>
> Limit (cost=752.67..752.67 rows=1 width=24)
> (11 rows)
>
> With 8.4 ::
> (8 rows)
Could you provide us the EXPLAIN *ANALYZE* output of both plans?
From what I can see, one of the difference is that the estimat
Hello,
We are using PostgreSQL to index a huge collection (570 000) of articles for a
french daily newspaper (Libération). We use massively the full text search
feature. I attach to this mail the schema of the database we use.
Overall, we have very interesting performances, except in a few cas
