pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Christoph Berg <christoph.berg@credativ.de>
Cc: PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: RT3.4 query needed a lot more tuning with 9.2 than it did with 8.1
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 16:14:06 -0400
Message-ID: <11475.1368476046@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+Tgmobe3UH50Uhq=NLFj5GvgMgq2qMohguhOFBqhEgcMtKx=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130430112055.GA27525@msgid.df7cb.de>
	<CA+Tgmobe3UH50Uhq=NLFj5GvgMgq2qMohguhOFBqhEgcMtKx=w@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe:  <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> The planner is estimating this the outer side of this nested loop will
> produce 33 rows and that the inner side will produce 1.  One would
> assume that the row estimate for the join product couldn't be more
> than 33 * 1 = 33 rows, but the planner is estimating 62335 rows, which
> seems like nonsense.

You know, of course, that the join size estimate isn't arrived at that
way.  Still, this point does make it seem more like a planner bug and
less like bad input stats.  It would be nice to see a self-contained
example ...

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance



view thread (11+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <11475.1368476046@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../11475.1368476046@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/11475.1368476046@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, christoph.berg@credativ.de
  Subject: Re: RT3.4 query needed a lot more tuning with 9.2 than it did with 8.1
  In-Reply-To: <11475.1368476046@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* 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