pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Dutcher <dave@tridecap.com>
To: 'Ow Mun Heng' <Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs MySQL, and FreeBSD
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:56:28 -0600
Message-ID: <01c601c82869$3ffb2580$8e00a8c0@tridecap.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1195206185.29253.56.camel@neuromancer.home.net>
References: <47344D43.5090506@geri.cc.fer.hr>
	<47347F9F.1070309@laliluna.de>
	<1195206185.29253.56.camel@neuromancer.home.net>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ow Mun Heng
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL vs MySQL, and FreeBSD
> 
> Even for Postgresql, nested loops are still evil and hampers 
> performance.


I don't know about that.  There are times when it is the right plan:
 

explain analyze select * from table1 t1 inner join table2 t2 on t1.f_id =
t2.id where t1.id = 'xyzzy';

                                                                 QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
 Nested Loop  (cost=0.00..17.65 rows=1 width=344) (actual time=0.080..0.096
rows=1 loops=1)
   ->  Index Scan using table1_pkey on table1 t  (cost=0.00..9.18 rows=1
width=238) (actual time=0.044..0.048 rows=1 loops=1)
         Index Cond: ((id)::text = 'xyzzy'::text)
   ->  Index Scan using table2_pkey on table2 i  (cost=0.00..8.46 rows=1
width=106) (actual time=0.019..0.023 rows=1 loops=1)
         Index Cond: (t.f_id = i.id)
 Total runtime: 0.224 ms


set enable_nestloop=off;
SET


explain analyze select * from table1 t1 inner join table2 t2 on t1.f_id =
t2.id where t1.id = 'xyzzy';

                                                               QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
 Hash Join  (cost=9.18..72250.79 rows=1 width=344) (actual
time=13493.572..15583.049 rows=1 loops=1)
   Hash Cond: (i.id = t.f_id)
   ->  Seq Scan on table2 i  (cost=0.00..61297.40 rows=2188840 width=106)
(actual time=0.015..8278.347 rows=2188840 loops=1)
   ->  Hash  (cost=9.18..9.18 rows=1 width=238) (actual time=0.056..0.056
rows=1 loops=1)
         ->  Index Scan using table1_pkey on table1 t  (cost=0.00..9.18
rows=1 width=238) (actual time=0.040..0.045 rows=1 loops=1)
               Index Cond: ((id)::text = 'xyzzy'::text)
 Total runtime: 15583.212 ms

(I changed the table names, but everything else is real.)





view thread (20+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <01c601c82869$3ffb2580$8e00a8c0@tridecap.com>
Permalink:  ../01c601c82869$3ffb2580$8e00a8c0@tridecap.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/01c601c82869$3ffb2580$8e00a8c0@tridecap.com

 · 

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
  Cc: dave@tridecap.com, Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com
  Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs MySQL, and FreeBSD
  In-Reply-To: <01c601c82869$3ffb2580$8e00a8c0@tridecap.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox