From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: Aaron Brashears <abrashears@justin.tv>
Subject: Bad cost estimate with FALSE filter condition
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:28:06 -0800
Message-ID: <54F119A6.9080106@agliodbs.com> (raw)
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
All:
This got posted to pgsql-bugs, but got no attention there[1], so I'm
sending it to this list.
Test case:
createdb bench
pgbench -i -s bench
\c bench
bench=# explain select * from pgbench_accounts where aid = 2;
QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Index Scan using pgbench_accounts_pkey on pgbench_accounts
(cost=0.42..8.44 rows=1 width=97)
Index Cond: (aid = 2)
(2 rows)
bench=# explain select * from pgbench_accounts where aid = 2 and false;
QUERY PLAN
-------------------------------------------------
Result (cost=0.00..26394.00 rows=1 width=97)
One-Time Filter: false
-> Seq Scan on pgbench_accounts (cost=0.00..26394.00 rows=1 width=97)
(3 rows)
This seems like a special case of the "aborted plan cost", that is, when
the planner expects to abort a plan early, it nevertheless returns the
full cost for the non-aborted version of the query, rather than the
working cost, which is based on the abort.
For example:
bench=# create index on pgbench_accounts(bid);
CREATE INDEX
bench=# explain select * from pgbench_accounts where bid = 2;
QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Index Scan using pgbench_accounts_bid_idx on pgbench_accounts
(cost=0.42..4612.10 rows=102667 width=97)
Index Cond: (bid = 2)
(2 rows)
bench=# explain select * from pgbench_accounts where bid = 2 limit 1;
QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit (cost=0.00..0.28 rows=1 width=97)
-> Seq Scan on pgbench_accounts (cost=0.00..28894.00 rows=102667
width=97)
Filter: (bid = 2)
(3 rows)
So in this case, the top-level node returns a lower cost because the
planner knows that it will find a row with bid=2 fairly quickly in the
seq scan. But in the WHERE FALSE example, that scan *is* the top-level
node, so the planner returns a fictitious cost for the whole query.
Or is there something else at work here?
[1]
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150225194953.2546.86836@wrigleys.postgresql.org
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
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: josh@agliodbs.com, abrashears@justin.tv
Subject: Re: Bad cost estimate with FALSE filter condition
In-Reply-To: <54F119A6.9080106@agliodbs.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