From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jonathan Hseu <vomjom@vomjom.net>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Index scan plan estimates way off.
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:30:51 -0500
Message-ID: <8053.1236277851@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <78a8986f0903050756i7b1f6c27teb4c67d4578f11ae@mail.gmail.com>
References: <78a8986f0903050756i7b1f6c27teb4c67d4578f11ae@mail.gmail.com>
Jonathan Hseu <vomjom@vomjom.net> writes:
> Sort (cost=11684028.44..11761274.94 rows=30898601 width=40)
> Sort Key: "time"
> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on ticks (cost=715657.57..6995196.08 rows=30898601
> width=40)
> Recheck Cond: (contract_id = 1)
> -> Bitmap Index Scan on contract_id_time_idx
> (cost=0.00..707932.92 rows=30898601 width=0)
> Index Cond: (contract_id = 1)
> (6 rows)
> This plan doesn't complete in a reasonable amount of time. I end up having
> to kill the query after it's been running for over an hour.
The bitmap scan should be at least as efficient as the plain indexscan,
so I suppose the problem is that the sort is slow. What's the datatype
of "time"? Can this machine actually support 256MB+ work_mem, or is that
likely to be driving it into swapping?
You might learn more from enabling trace_sort and watching the
postmaster log entries it generates. On the whole I think the planner
isn't making a stupid choice here: sorting a large number of rows
usually *is* preferable to making an indexscan over them, unless the
table is remarkably close to being in physical order for the index.
So it would be worth trying to figure out what the problem with the
sort is.
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, vomjom@vomjom.net
Subject: Re: Index scan plan estimates way off.
In-Reply-To: <8053.1236277851@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