From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Denes Daniel <panther-d@freemail.hu>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Query planner unaware of possibly best plan
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:49:33 +0100
Message-ID: <1190396973.4202.116.camel@ebony.site> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <freemail.20070821173625.87009@fm03.freemail.hu>
References: <freemail.20070821173625.87009@fm03.freemail.hu>
On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 17:36 +0200, Denes Daniel wrote:
> Even though I forced the nested loop plan using both indexes (that
> returns the rows in the correct order), there is a needless sort step on
> the top, consuming half of the time even on such small tables.
> Now it's clear why the planner did not choose this plan, why I had to
> force it: because it isn't the best if the sort is still there.
Ordering by parent, child is fairly common but the variation you've got
here isn't that common. You'd need to make a case considering all the
alternatives; nobody will agree without a balanced case that includes
what is best for everyone.
Your EXPLAIN looks edited. Have you also edited the sort costs? They
look slightly higher than we might expect. Please provide the full
normal EXPLAIN output.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
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: simon@2ndquadrant.com, panther-d@freemail.hu
Subject: Re: Query planner unaware of possibly best plan
In-Reply-To: <1190396973.4202.116.camel@ebony.site>
* 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