From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Planner reluctant to start from subquery
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:14:45 -0500
Message-ID: <4218.1138824885@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43E0BEDD.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov>
References: <43E0AA7E.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov>
<43E0AA7E.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov>
<3759.1138822464@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<43E0BEDD.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov>
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> ... expected an equivalent IN clause to work better. In fact, I'm not
>> clear why the planner isn't finding the cheapest plan (which it does
>> estimate as cheapest) from the IN version you posted.
> All I know is that trying various permutations, I saw it pick a good
> plan for the IN format when I eliminated the last outer join in the FROM
> clause. I know it isn't conclusive, but it was a correlation which
> suggested a possible causality to me.
But there is still an outer join in your third example (the one with the
best plan), so that doesn't seem to hold water. In any case, the way
that IN planning works these days it really should have considered the
plan equivalent to your JOIN-against-GROUP-BY variant.
I'm interested to poke at this ... are you in a position to provide a
test case?
regards, tom lane
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, Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov
Subject: Re: Planner reluctant to start from subquery
In-Reply-To: <4218.1138824885@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