From: Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com>
To: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
Subject: Re: bad plan
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 19:35:31 +0100
Message-ID: <422DF073.7080307@bigfoot.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <422DA6A5.2060908@archonet.com>
References: <422D7F23.7000109@bigfoot.com>
<422D8F0E.8000906@archonet.com>
<422D9904.5010904@bigfoot.com>
<422DA6A5.2060908@archonet.com>
Richard Huxton wrote:
> OK, so looking at the original EXPLAIN the order of processing seems to be:
> 1. v_sat_request is evaluated and filtered on login='...' (lines 7..15)
> This gives us 31 rows
> 2. The left-join from v_sat_request to v_sc_packages is processed (lines
> 5..6)
> This involves the subquery scan on vsp (from line 16) where it seems to
> think the best idea is a merge join of programs to sequences.
Whel basically v_sc_packages depends on other 3 views that are just a simple
interface to a plain table.
If I execute a select only on this table I get reasonable executions time:
=== cpu_tuple_cost = 0.07
# explain analyze select * from v_sc_packages where id_package = 19628;
QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nested Loop (cost=0.00..15.96 rows=1 width=131) (actual time=41.450..41.494 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..11.86 rows=1 width=116) (actual time=1.022..1.055 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop Left Join (cost=0.00..7.89 rows=1 width=104) (actual time=0.330..0.345 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using packages_pkey on packages p (cost=0.00..3.90 rows=1 width=104) (actual time=0.070..0.075 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: (id_package = 19628)
-> Index Scan using package_security_id_package_key on package_security ps (cost=0.00..3.91 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.232..0.237 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: ("outer".id_package = ps.id_package)
-> Index Scan using idx_sequences_id_package on sequences (cost=0.00..3.90 rows=1 width=16) (actual time=0.670..0.685 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: (19628 = id_package)
Filter: (estimated_start IS NOT NULL)
-> Index Scan using programs_pkey on programs (cost=0.00..4.02 rows=1 width=19) (actual time=0.078..0.086 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: (programs.id_program = "outer".id_program)
Filter: (id_program <> 0)
Total runtime: 42.650 ms
(14 rows)
=== cpu_tuple_cost = 0.01
# explain analyze select * from v_sc_packages where id_package = 19628;
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nested Loop (cost=0.00..15.54 rows=1 width=131) (actual time=25.062..69.977 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..11.56 rows=1 width=116) (actual time=5.396..50.299 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop Left Join (cost=0.00..7.71 rows=1 width=104) (actual time=5.223..32.842 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using packages_pkey on packages p (cost=0.00..3.84 rows=1 width=104) (actual time=0.815..7.235 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: (id_package = 19628)
-> Index Scan using package_security_id_package_key on package_security ps (cost=0.00..3.85 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=4.366..25.555 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: ("outer".id_package = ps.id_package)
-> Index Scan using idx_sequences_id_package on sequences (cost=0.00..3.84 rows=1 width=16) (actual time=0.147..17.422 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: (19628 = id_package)
Filter: (estimated_start IS NOT NULL)
-> Index Scan using programs_pkey on programs (cost=0.00..3.96 rows=1 width=19) (actual time=0.043..0.049 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: (programs.id_program = "outer".id_program)
Filter: (id_program <> 0)
Total runtime: 70.254 ms
(14 rows)
and I get the best with this:
=== cpu_tuple_cost = 0.001
# explain analyze select * from v_sc_packages where id_package = 19628;
QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nested Loop (cost=0.00..15.48 rows=1 width=131) (actual time=2.516..2.553 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..7.78 rows=1 width=31) (actual time=1.439..1.457 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using idx_sequences_id_package on sequences (cost=0.00..3.83 rows=1 width=16) (actual time=0.442..0.450 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: (19628 = id_package)
Filter: (estimated_start IS NOT NULL)
-> Index Scan using programs_pkey on programs (cost=0.00..3.95 rows=1 width=19) (actual time=0.972..0.978 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: (programs.id_program = "outer".id_program)
Filter: (id_program <> 0)
-> Nested Loop Left Join (cost=0.00..7.68 rows=1 width=104) (actual time=0.110..0.125 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using packages_pkey on packages p (cost=0.00..3.84 rows=1 width=104) (actual time=0.040..0.046 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: (id_package = 19628)
-> Index Scan using package_security_id_package_key on package_security ps (cost=0.00..3.84 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.036..0.042 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: ("outer".id_package = ps.id_package)
Total runtime: 2.878 ms
(14 rows)
but with this last setting for the original query is choosed a very bad plan.
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
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: mendola@bigfoot.com, dev@archonet.com
Subject: Re: bad plan
In-Reply-To: <422DF073.7080307@bigfoot.com>
* 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