On 21 September 2017 at 04:15, Mike Broers <mbroers@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ultimately I think this is just highlighting the need in my environment to
> set random_page_cost lower (we are on an SSD SAN anyway..), but I dont think
> I have a satisfactory reason by the row estimates are so bad in the QA
> planner and why it doesnt use that partition index there.
Without the index there are no stats to allow the planner to perform a
good estimate on "e.body->>'SID' is not null", so it applies a default
of 99.5%. So, as a simple example, if you have a partition with 1
million rows. If you apply 99.5% to that you get 995000 rows. Now if
you add the selectivity for "e.validation_status_code = 'P' ", let's
say that's 50%, the row estimate for the entire WHERE clause would be
497500 (1000000 * 0.995 * 0.5). Since the 99.5% is applied in both
cases, then the only variable part is validation_status_code. Perhaps
validation_status_code = 'P' is much more common in QA than in
production.
You can look at the stats as gathered by ANALYZE with:
\x on
select * from pg_stats where tablename = 'event__99999999' and attname
= 'validation_status_code';
\x off
-- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance