From: Anthony Presley <anthony@resolution.com>
To: Pgsql-Performance ((((E-mail)))) <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Why is it choosing a different plan?
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 19:25:24 -0500
Message-ID: <1158971124.8070.24.camel@puma> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1158969533.8070.19.camel@puma>
References: <1158965956.8070.12.camel@puma>
<1158969533.8070.19.camel@puma>
Doh!
Bad kharma. I apologize. Too late, and not enuf caffeine. I posted
here because this query is taking 2+ minutes on a production machine,
and under 4 seconds on a development machine.
For posterity sakes .... the seq scan is because of the distribution of
those values. GIL is in about 1/2 of the records. The others are very
common. Cheaper to do a Sequential than to do an index. The other
values are present in only a few spotted cases (1 to 3000), and the
index is better.
Also helps when the production machine has all of its indexes in place
to actually do the reading.
Sorry to be a bother!
--
Anthony
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 18:58 -0500, Anthony Presley wrote:
> I thought this was related to the TYPE (ie, I could cast it using
> something like: attr1=1::int8). However, I tried a few more values, and
> the query planner is confusing me.
>
> With these values, in the owner, I get a Seq Scan:
> 'GIL', '1122', '2305'
>
> With these values, in the owner, I get an Index Scan:
> 'p1', 'p2', '2300', '8088', 'CHANGEINVENTION'
>
> The os_currentstep table has about 119,700 rows in it -- and I can't do
> too much to actually change the query, since it's coming from something
> of a 'black box' application.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Anthony
>
> On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 17:59 -0500, Anthony Presley wrote:
> > Hi all, I'm having some confusion with the 7.4 query planner.
> >
> > I have two identical queries, whereby the passed (varchar) parameter
> > appears to be the deciding factor between a sequential or an index scan.
> >
> >
> > IE, This query:
> >
> > explain SELECT DISTINCT (a1.ENTRY_ID) AS retrieved FROM OS_CURRENTSTEP
> > AS a1 , OS_CURRENTSTEP AS a2 WHERE a1.ENTRY_ID = a1.ENTRY_ID AND
> > a1.ENTRY_ID = a2.ENTRY_ID AND ( a1.OWNER = 'p1' AND a2.STEP_ID =
> > 1 );
> > NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
> >
> > Unique (cost=1175.88..1175.88 rows=1 width=16)
> > -> Sort (cost=1175.88..1175.88 rows=1 width=16)
> > -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..1175.87 rows=1 width=16)
> > -> Index Scan using idx_9 on os_currentstep a1
> > (cost=0.00..1172.45 rows=1 width=8)
> > -> Index Scan using idx_8 on os_currentstep a2
> > (cost=0.00..3.41 rows=1 width=8)
> >
> > However, this query:
> >
> > explain SELECT DISTINCT (a1.ENTRY_ID) AS retrieved FROM OS_CURRENTSTEP
> > AS a1 , OS_CURRENTSTEP AS a2 WHERE a1.ENTRY_ID = a1.ENTRY_ID AND
> > a1.ENTRY_ID = a2.ENTRY_ID AND ( a1.OWNER = 'GIL' AND a2.STEP_ID =
> > 1 );
> > NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
> >
> > Unique (cost=3110.22..3110.22 rows=1 width=16)
> > -> Sort (cost=3110.22..3110.22 rows=1 width=16)
> > -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..3110.21 rows=1 width=16)
> > -> Seq Scan on os_currentstep a1 (cost=0.00..3106.78
> > rows=1 width=8)
> > -> Index Scan using idx_8 on os_currentstep a2
> > (cost=0.00..3.41 rows=1 width=8)
> >
> >
> > Thoughts about why changing OWNER from 'p1' to 'GIL' would go from an
> > Index Scan to a Sequential?
> >
> > [There is an index on os_currentstep, and it was vacuum analyze'd
> > recently.]
> >
> > Running version 7.4 (working on upgrading to 8.0 soon). Thanks!
> >
> > --
> > Anthony
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
> >
> > http://archives.postgresql.org
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
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: anthony@resolution.com
Subject: Re: Why is it choosing a different plan?
In-Reply-To: <1158971124.8070.24.camel@puma>
* 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