Re: Looks like merge join planning time is too big, 55 seconds

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Sergey Burladyan <eshkinkot(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Looks like merge join planning time is too big, 55 seconds
Date: 2013-08-02 15:50:48
Message-ID: 1899.1375458648@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Sergey Burladyan <eshkinkot(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> If I not mistaken, may be two code paths like this here:
>> (1) mergejoinscansel -> scalarineqsel-> ineq_histogram_selectivity -> get_actual_variable_range -> index_getnext
>> (2) scalargtsel -> scalarineqsel -> ineq_histogram_selectivity -> get_actual_variable_range -> index_getnext

> Yeah, I think you are correct.

mergejoinscansel does *not* call scalarineqsel, nor get_actual_variable_range.
It calls get_variable_range, which only looks at the pg_statistic entries.

I think we need to see the actual stack traces, not incomplete versions.
It's possible that the situation here involves bloat in pg_statistic, but
we're just leaping to conclusions if we assume that that's where the index
fetches are occurring.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sergey Burladyan 2013-08-02 16:20:22 Re: Looks like merge join planning time is too big, 55 seconds
Previous Message Jeff Janes 2013-08-02 15:35:45 Re: Looks like merge join planning time is too big, 55 seconds