From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Brian Connolly <bconn@labkey.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Poor query plan chosen in 9.0.3 vs 8.3.7
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 16:27:15 -0400
Message-ID: <9177.1304627235@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTin2HYy2m_Db354XMf=gDxxf7R1eCg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTin2HYy2m_Db354XMf=gDxxf7R1eCg@mail.gmail.com>
Brian Connolly <bconn@labkey.com> writes:
> Any help that you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
I'd suggest trying to get rid of the weird little subselects, like this
one:
> ... SELECT * FROM assayresult."c69d129_particle_size_result_fields"
> WHERE (((SELECT Container FROM exp.Data WHERE RowId = DataId) IN
> ('d938da12-1b43-102d-a8a2-78911b79dd1c'))) ...
If you turned that into a regular join between
c69d129_particle_size_result_fields and Data, the planner probably
wouldn't be nearly as confused about how many rows would result.
It's the way-off rowcount estimate for this construct that's
causing most of the problem, AFAICS:
-> Seq Scan on c69d129_particle_size_result_fields (cost=0.00..229742.02 rows=348 width=59) (actual time=0.018..572.402 rows=69654 loops=1)
Filter: (((SubPlan 3))::text = 'd938da12-1b43-102d-a8a2-78911b79dd1c'::text)
SubPlan 3
-> Index Scan using pk_data on data (cost=0.00..3.27 rows=1 width=37) (actual time=0.004..0.005 rows=1 loops=69654)
Index Cond: (rowid = $2)
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, bconn@labkey.com
Subject: Re: Poor query plan chosen in 9.0.3 vs 8.3.7
In-Reply-To: <9177.1304627235@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