From: David Wilson <david.t.wilson@gmail.com>
To: Alexander Staubo <alex@bengler.no>
Cc: pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Bad plan for nested loop + limit
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:29:52 -0500
Message-ID: <e7f9235d0902142029h5b53baf2gede92b22afbbad35@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <88daf38c0902141425s6972d849i9dad904f55d93c77@mail.gmail.com>
References: <88daf38c0902141425s6972d849i9dad904f55d93c77@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Alexander Staubo <alex@bengler.no> wrote:
>
> Output from "explain analyze":
>
> Limit (cost=0.00..973.63 rows=4 width=48) (actual
> time=61.554..4039.704 rows=1 loops=1)
> -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..70101.65 rows=288 width=48) (actual
> time=61.552..4039.700 rows=1 loops=1)
> -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..68247.77 rows=297 width=52)
> (actual time=61.535..4039.682 rows=1 loops=1)
Those estimates are pretty far off. Did you try increasing the
statistics target? Also, is the first query repeatable (that is, is it
already in cache when you do the test, or alternately, are all queries
*out* of cache when you test?)
--
- David T. Wilson
david.t.wilson@gmail.com
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: david.t.wilson@gmail.com, alex@bengler.no
Subject: Re: Bad plan for nested loop + limit
In-Reply-To: <e7f9235d0902142029h5b53baf2gede92b22afbbad35@mail.gmail.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