Re: v7.2.3 versus v7.3 -> huge performance penalty for JOIN with UNION

> > Any hints on this (last) one....?
> > -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..643707.03 rows=3980 width=28)
> > Join Filter: (((("inner".debtor_id)::text || '-'::text) ||
> > ("inner".address_seqnr)::text) = "outer".old_id)
>
> Looks to me like debtor_id and address_seqnr are not text type, but are
> being compared to things that are text.

They were coerced, yes, but changing those original types helps only so much:

* lbar.debtor_id is of type text
* lbar.address_seqnr is of type text
* aa.old_id is of type text

trial=# explain update address set region_id = lbar.region_id from
(select debtor_id || '-' || address_seqnr as f_id, region_id from
list_base_regions) as lbar, aux_address aa
where lbar.f_id = aa.old_id and address.id = aa.id;

Since the left side of the join clause is composed out of three concatenated
text-parts resulting in one single piece of type text, I'd expect the planner
to avoid the nested loop. Still:

QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merge Join (cost=1.07..16.07 rows=1 width=309)
Merge Cond: ("outer".id = "inner".id)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..149669.38 rows=1000 width=84)
Join Filter: ((("inner".debitor_id || '-'::text) ||
"inner".address_seqnr) = "outer".old_id)
-> Index Scan using aux_address_idx2 on aux_address aa
(cost=0.00..81.88 rows=3989 width=16)
-> Seq Scan on list_base_regions (cost=0.00..20.00 rows=1000
width=68)
-> Sort (cost=1.07..1.08 rows=3 width=225)
Sort Key: address.id
-> Seq Scan on address (cost=0.00..1.05 rows=3 width=225)
Filter: ((id = 1) IS NOT TRUE)
(10 rows)

> Hard to tell exactly what's going on though

Does this help?

NB: it seems the data types part of the manual doesn't enlighten me on this
subject, any suggestions where to find more input?

Regards,

Frank.