From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alistair Bayley <alistair@abayley.org>
cc: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>,
 "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Why is the optimiser choosing the slower query, or,
 understanding explain analyze output
In-reply-to: 
 <CAKYODbj0Yq5kWxnSbBWkDiH4w2vmUL-10qmV4-O3w0PPrgMxmw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAKYODbj6xQDShQd2g3+9oue0+cz3NXjrnRvmbrfRDRoReWxFKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMkU=1x16-S5V+BKD0Pr2K3NyCQvv7hsCP1Fk4UcwHecssV_KQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <11385.1392687610@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAKYODbj0Yq5kWxnSbBWkDiH4w2vmUL-10qmV4-O3w0PPrgMxmw@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Alistair Bayley <alistair@abayley.org>
 message dated "Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:18:19 +1300"
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 21:30:14 -0500
Message-ID: <12233.1392690614@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org

Alistair Bayley <alistair@abayley.org> writes:
> On 18 February 2014 14:40, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I notice though that the cost estimate for the seqscan plan isn't all that
>> much lower than that for the indexscan plan.  Probably lowering
>> random_page_cost a bit would change the planner's mind.  We have no
>> information about total size of database vs available RAM, but if it's
>> a mostly memory-resident database then such a change would be a good idea.

> [ database size is 3GB, RAM 2GB ]

The usual advice for database-in-RAM scenarios is to set random_page_cost
= 1, or even to lower both random_page_cost and seq_page_cost below 1.
In this case, since it's not going to be entirely RAM-resident, a
compromise setting around 2 might be a good idea.

> I'm particularly interested in the massive different between cost and
> actual for the index plan. The seq scan plan has 451984/248694 (ratio
> 1.82) for cost/actual, while the index plan has 502051/11597 (ratio
> 43.29). At least the seq scan plan is only out by a factor of ~2.

Most likely this means that the index plan is taking a lot more advantage
of locality-of-reference than the planner is giving it credit for.
I wouldn't put too much faith in those numbers by themselves though,
because that's what nearly always happens if you run the same case
through EXPLAIN more than once: all the data it needs is already in
cache.  It's a good idea to pay attention to what happens when the plan
does have to read in some new data.

			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