From: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Searching for the cause of a bad plan |
Date: | 2007-09-24 14:04:42 |
Message-ID: | 1190642682.4661.247.camel@PCD12478 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 14:27 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Csaba, please can you copy that data into fresh tables, re-ANALYZE and
> then re-post the EXPLAINs, with stats data.
Well, I can of course. I actually tried to generate some random data
with similar record count and relations between the tables (which I'm
not sure I succeeded at), without the extra columns, but it was happily
yielding the nested loop plan. So I guess I really have to copy the
whole data (several tens of GB).
But from my very limited understanding of what information is available
for the planner, I thought that the record count estimated for the join
between table_a and table_b1 on column b should be something like
(estimated record count in table_a for value "a") * (weight of "b" range
covered by table_b1 and table_a in common) / (weight of "b" range
covered by table_a)
This is if the "b" values in table_a wouldn't be correlated at all with
the content of table_b2. The reality is that they are, but the planner
has no information about that.
I have no idea how the planner works though, so this might be totally
off...
I will copy the data and send the results (not promising though that it
will be today).
Cheers,
Csaba.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gábor Farkas | 2007-09-24 14:07:16 | select count(*) performance (vacuum did not help) |
Previous Message | brauagustin-susc | 2007-09-24 13:59:26 | Re: Low CPU Usage |