RE: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates

From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates
Date: 2000-01-21 01:44:20
Message-ID: 000b01bf63b1$093cbd40$2801007e@tpf.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
> [mailto:owner-pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org]On Behalf Of Tom Lane
>
> I have been spending some time measuring actual runtimes for various
> sequential-scan and index-scan query plans, and have learned that the
> current Postgres optimizer's cost estimation equations are not very
> close to reality at all.
>

Thanks for your good analysis.

I also have said current cost estimation for index-scan is too low.
But I have had no concrete numerical values.

I've wondered why we cound't analyze database without vacuum.
We couldn't run vacuum light-heartedly because it acquires an
exclusive lock for the target table.
In addition,vacuum error occurs with analyze option in most
cases AFAIK.

Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2000-01-21 01:56:51 Re: [HACKERS] timezone problem?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-01-21 01:11:19 Re: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates