From: Meetesh Karia <meetesh.karia@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: John Arbash Meinel <john@arbash-meinel.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Planner incorrectly choosing seq scan over index scan
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 09:05:50 +0200
Message-ID: <fc5b04ca05080200054a6da4c3@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <26292.1122941726@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <fc5b04ca05080115195d15c456@mail.gmail.com>
<42EEAD4B.4010905@arbash-meinel.com>
<fc5b04ca05080116564d1b3323@mail.gmail.com>
<26292.1122941726@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Thanks Tom,
That modifies the query plan slightly, but the planner still decides to do a
hash join for the lte_user table aliased 't'. Though, if I make this change
and set enable_hashjoin to off, the query plan (and execution time) gets
even better.
enable_hashjoin = on
----------------------------------
QUERY PLAN
Sort (cost=10113.35..10122.02 rows=3467 width=48) (actual time=
1203.000..1203.000 rows=3467 loops=1)
Sort Key: c.sourceid, c.targetid
-> Nested Loop (cost=8711.19..9909.50 rows=3467 width=48) (actual time=
1156.000..1203.000 rows=3467 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using lte_user_pkey on lte_user s (cost=0.00..3.02 rows=1
width=16) (actual time=0.000..0.000 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: (617004 = user_id)
-> Hash Join (cost=8711.19..9776.46 rows=3467 width=40) (actual time=
1156.000..1187.000 rows=3467 loops=1)
Hash Cond: ("outer".targetid = "inner".user_id)
-> Seq Scan on candidates617004 c (cost=0.00..76.34 rows=3467 width=32)
(actual time=0.000..16.000 rows=3467 loops=1)
Filter: (sourceid = 617004)
-> Hash (cost=8012.55..8012.55 rows=279455 width=16) (actual time=
1141.000..1141.000 rows=0 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on lte_user t (cost=0.00..8012.55 rows=279455 width=16) (actual
time=0.000..720.000 rows=279395 loops=1)
Total runtime: 1218.000 ms
enable_hashjoin = off
-----------------------------------
QUERY PLAN
Sort (cost=10942.56..10951.22 rows=3467 width=48) (actual time=
188.000..188.000 rows=3467 loops=1)
Sort Key: c.sourceid, c.targetid
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..10738.71 rows=3467 width=48) (actual time=
0.000..188.000 rows=3467 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using lte_user_pkey on lte_user s (cost=0.00..3.02 rows=1
width=16) (actual time=0.000..0.000 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: (617004 = user_id)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..10605.67 rows=3467 width=40) (actual time=
0.000..157.000 rows=3467 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on candidates617004 c (cost=0.00..76.34 rows=3467 width=32)
(actual time=0.000..15.000 rows=3467 loops=1)
Filter: (sourceid = 617004)
-> Index Scan using lte_user_pkey on lte_user t (cost=0.00..3.02 rows=1
width=16) (actual time=0.028..0.037 rows=1 loops=3467)
Index Cond: ("outer".targetid = t.user_id)
Total runtime: 188.000 ms
Thanks,
Meetesh
On 8/2/05, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Meetesh Karia <meetesh.karia@gmail.com> writes:
> > Sure. The lte_user table is just a collection of users. user_id is
> assigned=
> > uniquely using a sequence. During some processing, we create a
> candidates=
> > table (candidates617004 in our case). This table is usually a temp
> table.=
> > sourceid is a user_id (in this case it is always 617004) and targetid
> is=20
> > also a user_id (2860 distinct values out of 3467). The rest of the=20
> > information is either only used in the select clause or not used at
> all=20
> > during this processing.
>
> If you know that sourceid has only a single value, it'd probably be
> helpful to call out that value in the query, ie,
> where ... AND c.sourceId = 617004 ...
>
> 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: meetesh.karia@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, john@arbash-meinel.com
Subject: Re: Planner incorrectly choosing seq scan over index scan
In-Reply-To: <fc5b04ca05080200054a6da4c3@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