Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([98.129.198.125])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <nitrogenycs@gmail.com>)
	id 1THBdz-0001Ar-SL; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:48:36 +0000
Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com ([209.85.212.178])
	by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <nitrogenycs@gmail.com>)
	id 1THBdx-0005mk-LI; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:48:34 +0000
Received: by wibhr7 with SMTP id hr7so1832282wib.1
	for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 03:48:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=content-type:to:cc:subject:references:date:mime-version
	:content-transfer-encoding:from:message-id:in-reply-to:user-agent;
	bh=xIgWzRZoJ+qcEDGdPwaNQVsOgQYC5YiCiXD25Nye5tE=;
	b=JHIfEKc7Cy948mYChzNEhvJ9SEntTD3PA6jjzx6FKB3qbHx5DpUAZ7WBZqsCe/V/Tg
	b+i0etnS3ULC9aIbT5hlm2un9TfK85dHL0DBVL9dP3qZIaLWneXejKmS699wet5vD07J
	1qxpe3h9QyYOtJM+tv/aUVGR5bgxo9TOvM8bO825nNkuVahuGgGhY0ZVT/Z9tGt1AK7n
	PE9PU3p73LeaXCOPPgiEZtroPrYIS29STuMOqDnR4ap2taI4+hc8Tersu7GOKHkSD2HS
	SYF2Lkl8Mkp9UZraJ0s7cMzMJ6jcLeZgD7Xx2W1wK2mCF+/3jUtPfgUMxqp+fEKap/ZJ
	4Gzg==
Received: by 10.180.100.35 with SMTP id ev3mr35853519wib.7.1348742911693;
	Thu, 27 Sep 2012 03:48:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nitrogenycs3 (p5089B896.dip.t-dialin.net. [80.137.184.150])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hv8sm37408679wib.0.2012.09.27.03.48.29
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
	Thu, 27 Sep 2012 03:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes
To: depesz@depesz.com, "Jeff Janes" <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
Cc: "Robert Sosinski" <rsosinski@ticketevolution.com>,
	pgsql-general@postgresql.org, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, "Spike
	Grobstein" <spike@ticketevolution.com>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Inaccurate Explain Cost
References: <ED7ED14D0D304B2FB38B191F3C160A22@ticketevolution.com>
	<20120926202140.GB10681@depesz.com>
	<CAMkU=1zcVExmcWPka2GHzaYe1kOcBX0pHzcV+hSfgFtHEk7fFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:48:24 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Matthias <nitrogenycs@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <op.wlaiyyw50uf2nk@nitrogenycs3>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAMkU=1zcVExmcWPka2GHzaYe1kOcBX0pHzcV+hSfgFtHEk7fFQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.02 (Win32)
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-Archive-Number: 201209/212
X-Sequence-Number: 47958

Am 27.09.2012, 02:04 Uhr, schrieb Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>:

> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:21 PM, hubert depesz lubaczewski
> <depesz@depesz.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 02:38:09PM -0400, Robert Sosinski wrote:
>>> The first query shows a cost of 190,169.55 and runs in 199,806.951 ms.
>>> When I disable nested loop, I get a cost of 2,535,992.34 which runs in
>>> only 133,447.790 ms.  We have run queries on our database with a cost
>>> of 200K cost before and they ran less then a few seconds, which makes
>>> me wonder if the first query plan is inaccurate.  The other issue is
>>> understanding why a query plan with a much higher cost is taking less
>>> time to run.
>>
>> Are you under impression that cost should be somehow related to actual
>> time?
>
> I am certainly under that impression.  If the estimated cost has
> nothing to do with run time, then what is it that the cost-based
> optimizer is trying to optimize?

See http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/runtime-config-query.html  
section "18.7.2. Planner Cost Constants".

-Matthias