From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Wayne Conrad <wconrad(at)yagni(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 8.4.7, incorrect estimate |
Date: | 2011-05-02 15:11:58 |
Message-ID: | 21729.1304349118@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Wayne Conrad <wconrad(at)yagni(dot)com> writes:
> On 04/29/11 12:12, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Out of curiosity, what do you get with?:
>>
>> explain analyze
>> select
>> page_number,
>> ps_id,
>> ps_page_id
>> from ps_page p
>> where exists
>> (
>> select * from documents_ps_page d
>> where d.ps_page_id = p.ps_page_id
>> and exists
>> (select * from temp_document_ids t
>> where t.document_id = d.document_id)
>> )
>> order by ps_page_id
> Merge Semi Join (cost=186501.69..107938082.91 rows=29952777 width=12)
> (actual time=242801.828..244572.318 rows=5 loops=1)
> Merge Cond: (p.ps_page_id = d.ps_page_id)
> -> Index Scan using ps_page_pkey on ps_page p
> (cost=0.00..2995637.47 rows=86141904 width=12) (actual
> time=0.052..64140.510 rows=85401688 loops=1)
> -> Index Scan using documents_ps_page_ps_page_id_idx on
> documents_ps_page d (cost=0.00..104384546.06 rows=37358320 width=4)
> (actual time=161483.657..163254.131 rows=5 loops=1)
> Filter: (alternatives: SubPlan 1 or hashed SubPlan 2)
> SubPlan 1
> -> Seq Scan on temp_doc_ids t (cost=0.00..1.35 rows=1
> width=0) (never executed)
> Filter: (document_id = $0)
> SubPlan 2
> -> Seq Scan on temp_doc_ids t (cost=0.00..1.34 rows=5
> width=35) (actual time=0.005..0.007 rows=5 loops=1)
> Total runtime: 244572.432 ms
> (11 rows)
[ pokes at that ... ] I think what you've got here is an oversight in
the convert-EXISTS-to-semijoin logic: it pulls up the outer EXISTS but
fails to recurse on it, which would be needed to convert the lower
EXISTS into a semijoin as well, which is what's needed in order to get
a non-bogus selectivity estimate for it.
I'll take a look at fixing that, but not sure if it'll be reasonable to
back-patch or not. In the meantime, you need to look into restructuring
the query to avoid nesting the EXISTS probes, if possible.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2011-05-02 15:18:52 | Re: The right SHMMAX and FILE_MAX |
Previous Message | Wayne Conrad | 2011-05-02 13:19:55 | Re: 8.4.7, incorrect estimate |