Re: Why is posgres picking a suboptimal plan for this query?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Sam Saffron <sam(dot)saffron(at)gmail(dot)com>, PGSQL Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why is posgres picking a suboptimal plan for this query?
Date: 2017-05-24 22:14:07
Message-ID: 3069.1495664047@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Sam Saffron <sam(dot)saffron(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I have this query that is not picking the right index unless I hard code
>> dates:
>> ...

> Maybe it should first execute the subquery and then re-plan the rest of the
> query based on the results. But there is no provision for it to do that,
> and no concrete plans (that I know of) to implement such a thing.

I don't know of any plans for that, either.

>> The results here simply do not make sense to me, should I be piping
>> dates in here to avoid this issue and running 2 queries instead of 1?

> That is the most pragmatic approach. It isn't very nice, but the
> alternatives are worse.

You could probably get the behavior you want by replacing the subquery
with a "stable" function:

create function first_topic_unread_for(userid int) returns timestamp as
'select first_topic_unread_at from user_stats us where us.user_id = $1'
language sql stable;

SELECT "topics".* FROM "topics"
WHERE topics.last_unread_at >= first_topic_unread_for(1);

This should convince the planner to pre-run the function to get an
estimated result at plan time.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sam Saffron 2017-05-24 22:33:03 Re: Why is posgres picking a suboptimal plan for this query?
Previous Message Jeff Janes 2017-05-24 21:43:35 Re: Why is posgres picking a suboptimal plan for this query?