From: Richard Rowell <richard@bowmansystems.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Strange behaviour
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:37:02 -0400
Message-ID: <1154036222.22231.40.camel@meowth> (raw)
We are using a BI tool that generates some rather ugly queries. One of
the ugly queries is taking much longer to return thin I think it
should.
The select expression when run alone returns in 2 seconds with 35k rows
(http://www.bowmansystems.com/~richard/explain_select.analyze)
The "where clause" when run alone returns 5200 rows in 10 seconds
(http://www.bowmansystems.com/~richard/explain_where.analyze)
However when I put to two together it takes much, much longer to run.
(http://www.bowmansystems.com/~richard/full.analyze)
Can anyone shed any light on what is going on here? Why does the
optimizer choose such a slow plan in the combined query when the only
real difference between the full query and the "where only" query is the
number of rows in the result set on the "outside" of the "IN" clause?
A few pertinent observations/facts below
1. The query is generated by a BI tool, I know it is ugly and stupid in
many cases. However, please try to see the larger issue, that if the
select and where portions are run separately they are both fast but
together it is insanely slow.
2. The database has vacuumdb -f -z run on it nightly.
3. Modifications to the stock postgresql.conf:
shared_buffers = 15000
work_mem = 131072
default_statistics_target = 100
4. Dual Dual core Opterons, 4 gigs of ram, 6 disk Serial ATA hardware
RAID 10 running Postgres 8.03 compiled from source running on Debian
stable.
5. The tables being queried are only 200 megs or so combined on disk,
the whole DB is ~ 4 gigs
SELECT sum(relpages*8/1024) AS size_M FROM pg_class;
size_m
--------
4178
Thanks!
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: richard@bowmansystems.com
Subject: Re: Strange behaviour
In-Reply-To: <1154036222.22231.40.camel@meowth>
* 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