Re: full outer performance problem

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Kim Bisgaard <kib+pg(at)dmi(dot)dk>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: full outer performance problem
Date: 2005-06-08 14:03:35
Message-ID: 1275.1118239415@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Kim Bisgaard <kib+pg(at)dmi(dot)dk> writes:
> SELECT station_id, timeobs,temp_grass, temp_dry_at_2m
> FROM temp_dry_at_2m a
> FULL OUTER JOIN temp_grass b
> USING (station_id, timeobs)
> WHERE station_id = 52981
> AND timeobs = '2004-1-1 0:0:0'

> explain analyse SELECT b.station_id, b.timeobs,temp_grass, temp_dry_at_2m
> FROM temp_dry_at_2m a
> FULL OUTER JOIN temp_grass b
> USING (station_id, timeobs)
> WHERE b.station_id = 52981
> AND b.timeobs = '2004-1-1 0:0:0'

> Why will PostgreSQL not use the same plan for both these queries - they
> are virtually identical??

Because they're semantically completely different. The second query is
effectively a RIGHT JOIN, because join rows in which b is all-null will
be thrown away by the WHERE. The optimizer sees this (note your second
plan doesn't use a Full Join step anywhere) and is able to produce a
much better plan. Full outer join is difficult to optimize, in part
because we have no choice but to use a merge join for it --- the other
join types don't support full join.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message K C Lau 2005-06-08 14:25:16 Re: SELECT DISTINCT Performance Issue
Previous Message Grega Bremec 2005-06-08 13:49:16 Re: Filesystem