A-Original-Client-UID: 188.129.65.237 splivalo
Message-ID: <4E1CC576.2080200@megafon.hr>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:06:46 +0200
From: Mario Splivalo <mario.splivalo@megafon.hr>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Planner choosing NestedLoop, although it is slower...
References: <4E1C8E62.2090800@megafon.hr> <4626.1310501052@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <4626.1310501052@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 07/12/2011 10:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mario Splivalo<mario.splivalo@megafon.hr>  writes:
>>    Limit  (cost=0.00..415.91 rows=21 width=8) (actual
>> time=11263.089..11263.089 rows=0 loops=1)
>>      ->   Nested Loop  (cost=0.00..186249.55 rows=9404 width=8) (actual
>> time=11263.087..11263.087 rows=0 loops=1)
>
>> Why is planner using NestedLoops,
>
> Because it thinks the LIMIT will kick in and end the query when the join
> is only 21/9404ths (ie, a fraction of a percent) complete.  A NestLoop
> results in saving a lot of work in that situation, whereas hash-and-sort
> has to do the whole join despite the LIMIT.
>
> What you need to look into is why the estimated join size is 9400 rows
> when the actual join size is zero.  Are both tables ANALYZEd?  Are you
> intentionally selecting rows that have no join partners?

Hi, Tom.

Yes, both tables have been ANALYZEd. What do you mean, intentilnaly 
selecting rows taht have no join partners?

	Mario