From: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
To: Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Wrong plan sequential scan instead of an index one
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:48:12 +0100
Message-ID: <460CDCDC.7020901@archonet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <460CD941.6080303@bigfoot.com>
References: <460CD941.6080303@bigfoot.com>
Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi all, take a look at those plans:
>
>
> test=# explain analyze SELECT COUNT(id) FROM t_oa_2_00_card WHERE
> pvcp in (select id from l_pvcp where value ilike '%pi%');
> -> Hash IN Join (cost=2.22..153835.49 rows=177404 width=8) (actual
> time=2.908..4001.814 rows=7801 loops=1) Hash Cond: ("outer".pvcp =
> "inner".id)
> Isn't too much choose a sequential scan due to 19 estimated rows when
> with 4 estimated does a correct index scan ?
I don't think it's the matches on l_pvcp that's the problem, it's the
fact that it thinks its getting 177404 rows matching the IN.
Now, why 19 rows from the subquery should produce such a large estimate
in the outer query I'm not sure. Any strange distribution of values on pvcp?
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
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: dev@archonet.com, mendola@bigfoot.com
Subject: Re: Wrong plan sequential scan instead of an index one
In-Reply-To: <460CDCDC.7020901@archonet.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