From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter J. Holzer <hjp-pgsql@hjp.at>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Different plan for very similar queries
Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 11:50:55 -0400
Message-ID: <32282.1433087455@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150531110010.GA25173@hjp.at>
References: <20150529085544.GA15813@hjp.at>
<20150529095117.GB15813@hjp.at>
<5568FAA5.3080807@2ndquadrant.com>
<29819.1433012674@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20150531110010.GA25173@hjp.at>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
"Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-pgsql@hjp.at> writes:
>>> Merge Semi Join (cost=316864.57..319975.79 rows=1 width=81) (actual time=7703.917..30948.271 rows=2 loops=1)
>>> Merge Cond: ((t.term)::text = (f.berechnungsart)::text)
>>> -> Index Scan using term_term_idx on term t (cost=0.00..319880.73 rows=636 width=81) (actual time=7703.809..7703.938 rows=3 loops=1)
>>> Filter: (((facttablename)::text = 'facttable_stat_fta4'::text) AND ((columnname)::text = 'berechnungsart'::text))
> Just noticed that this is a bit strange, too:
> This scans the whole index term_term_idx and for every row found it
> checks the table for the filter condition. So it has to read the whole
> index and the whole table, right? But the planner estimates that it will
> return only 636 rows (out of 6.1E6), so using
> term_facttablename_columnname_idx to extract those 636 and then sorting
> them should be quite a bit faster (even just a plain full table scan
> and then sorting should be faster).
Hm. I do not see that here with Tomas' sample data, neither on HEAD nor
9.1: I always get a scan using term_facttablename_columnname_idx. I agree
your plan looks strange. Can you create some sample data that reproduces
that particular misbehavior?
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
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, hjp-pgsql@hjp.at
Subject: Re: Different plan for very similar queries
In-Reply-To: <32282.1433087455@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