public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Attila Soki <[email protected]>
To: Laurenz Albe <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: unstable query plan on pg 16,17,18
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2026 21:42:03 +0100
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

> On 23 Feb 2026, at 20:59, Laurenz Albe <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2026-02-23 at 16:10 +0100, Attila Soki wrote:
>>> On 23 Feb 2026, at 10:41, Laurenz Albe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Mon, 2026-02-23 at 10:37 +0100, Attila Soki wrote:
>>>> When upgrading from PostgreSQL 14.4, I noticed that one of my somewhat complex
>>>> analytical queries sometimes gets an inefficient plan under PostgreSQL 16, 17, and 18.
>>>> Under 14.4, the query runs with a stable plan and completes in 19 to 22 seconds.
>>>> In newer versions, the plan seems to be unstable, sometimes the query completes
>>>> in 17 to 20 seconds, sometimes it runs for 5 to 18 minutes with the inefficient plan.
>>>> This also happens even if the data is not significantly changed.
>>> 
>>> This is very likely owing to a bad estimate.
>>> 
>>> Could you turn on "track_io_timing" and send us the EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) output
>>> for both the good and the bad plan?
>> 
>> Thank you for your reply. Here are the two explains.
>> In order to be able to publish the plans here, I have obfuscated the table and field names, but this is reversible, so I can provide more info if needed.
>> 
>> plan-ok:
>> https://explain.depesz.com/s/hQvM
>> 
>> plan-wrong:
>> https://explain.depesz.com/s/uLvl
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> The difference in the plans is under the "Subquery Scan on odg", starting with
> plan node 50 (everything under the "Sort").  I suspect that the mis-estimate
> that is at the root of the problem is here:
> 
> ->  Index Scan using table_k_late_spec_dp_end_dat_key on schema1.table_k kal  (... rows=196053 ...) (... rows=471.00 ...)
>      Index Cond: (kal.dp_end_dat < ('now'::cstring)::date)
>      Index Searches: 1
>      Buffers: shared hit=230 read=49
>      I/O Timings: shared read=0.142
> 
> PostgreSQL overestimates the row count by a factor of over 400.
> Try to fix that estimate and see if that gets PostgreSQL to do the right thing.
> 
> Perhaps a simple ANALYZE on the table can do the trick.

In the examples I used table_k to flip the plan with
vacuumed -Upostgres -vZ -t schema1.tbl_used_in_query db1
in the explain output schema1.tbl_used_in_query is table_k

> The right side of the comparison looks awkward, as if you wrote 'now'::text::date
> My experiments show that PostgreSQL v18 estimates well even with such a weird
> condition, but perhaps if you write "current_date" instead, you'd get better results.

I didn't realize that made a difference. I will replace all occurrences. It also looks more clean with current_date.

> 
> I'd play just with a query like
> 
>  EXPLAIN (ANALYZE)
>  SELECT * FROM schema1.table_k AS kal
>  WHERE dp_end_dat < current_date;
> 
> until I get a good estimate.

I will try to set custom statistics for dp_end_dat and the fields used by the table_k_late_spec_dp_end_dat_key index.
Let’s see if that helps.

I am on UTC+1. I will try all of this tomorrow and get back to you with the results later.

Thank you

regards,
Attila

view thread (25+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

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: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: unstable query plan on pg 16,17,18
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox