From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Szűcs Gábor <surrano(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: fake condition causes far better plan |
Date: | 2005-08-23 15:14:19 |
Message-ID: | 2638.1124810059@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Sz=FBcs_G=E1bor?= <surrano(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> [ bad query plan ]
Most of the problem is here:
> -> Index Scan using muvelet_vonalkod_ny_idopont on
> muvelet_vonalkod_ny ny (cost=0.00..1351.88 rows=24649 width=4) (actual
> time=0.161..10.735 rows=3943 loops=1)
> Index Cond: (idopont >= (now() -
> ('00:00:00'::interval + ('1 days'::text)::interval)))
(BTW, you lied about the query, because this index condition doesn't
match anything in the given query text.)
Pre-8.0 releases aren't capable of making useful statistical estimates
for conditions involving nonconstant subexpressions, so you get a
badly-mistaken row count estimate that leads to a poor choice of plan.
If you can't update to 8.0, the best answer is to do the date arithmetic
on the client side. Another way is to create an allegedly-immutable
function along the lines of "ago(interval) returns timestamptz" to hide
the now() call --- this is dangerous but sometimes it's the easiest answer.
See the archives.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | gokulnathbabu manoharan | 2005-08-23 17:10:45 | Caching by Postgres |
Previous Message | Chris Browne | 2005-08-23 15:12:51 | Re: Performance for relative large DB |