pg.ddx.io  pgsql-sql@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mario Dankoor <m.p.dankoor@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: bad plan
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:03:01 +0200
Message-ID: <4F7D89F5.7090301@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F7D843E.4060304@ulb.ac.be>
References: <4F7D843E.4060304@ulb.ac.be>

Julien,

It looks like you forgot to post the query.

Mario
On 2012-04-05 1:38 PM, Julien Cigar wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have an extremely bad plan for one of my colleague's query. 
> Basically PostgreSQL chooses to seq scan instead of index scan. This 
> is on:
>
> antabif=# select version();
>                                                  version
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
>  PostgreSQL 9.0.7 on amd64-portbld-freebsd8.2, compiled by GCC cc 
> (GCC) 4.2.1 20070719  [FreeBSD], 64-bit
>
> The machines has 4GB of RAM with the following config:
> - shared_buffers: 512MB
> - effective_cache_size: 2GB
> - work_mem: 32MB
> - maintenance_work_mem: 128MB
> - default_statistics_target: 300
> - temp_buffers: 64MB
> - wal_buffers: 8MB
> - checkpoint_segments = 15
>
> The tables have been ANALYZE'd. I've put the EXPLAIN ANALYZE on:
>
> - http://www.pastie.org/3731956 : with default config
> - http://www.pastie.org/3731960 : this is with enable_seq_scan = off
> - http://www.pastie.org/3731962 : I tried to play on the various cost 
> settings but it's doesn't change anything, except setting 
> random_page_cost to 1 (which will lead to bad plans for other queries, 
> so not a solution)
> - http://www.pastie.org/3732035 : with enable_hashagg and 
> enable_hashjoin to false
>
> I'm currently out of idea why PostgreSQL still chooses a bad plan for 
> this query ... any hint :) ?
>
> Thank you,
> Julien
>
>
>

view thread (6+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <4F7D89F5.7090301@gmail.com>
Permalink:  ../4F7D89F5.7090301@gmail.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/4F7D89F5.7090301@gmail.com

 · 

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: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
  Cc: m.p.dankoor@gmail.com
  Subject: Re: bad plan
  In-Reply-To: <4F7D89F5.7090301@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