Re: index vs. seq scan choice?

["Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>]

Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > (The default statistics target is 10, which is widely considered too
> > > low --- you might find 100 more suitable.)
>
> > Does this mean that we should look into raising the default a bit?
>
> Probably ... the question is to what.
>
> The default of 10 was chosen in our usual spirit of conservatism ---
> and IIRC it was replacing code that tracked only *one* most common
> value, so it was already a factor of 10 better (and more expensive)
> than what was there before.  But subsequent history suggests it's
> too small.  I'm not sure I want to vote for another 10x increase by
> default, though.

Outside of longer analyze times, and slightly more space taken up by the 
statistics, what is the downside? I mean in reality... what is setting 
to 100 going to do to effect actual production usage of even a modest 
machine?

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


> 			regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>        subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
>        message can get through to the mailing list cleanly


--

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
             http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/