From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | arcadiy(at)gmail(dot)com, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Optimizer misses big in 10.4 with BRIN index |
Date: | 2018-07-26 11:27:46 |
Message-ID: | 456967c4-2e67-03ed-bee0-fc578fec2b87@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07/26/2018 10:11 AM, Emre Hasegeli wrote:
>> Isn't the 23040 just the totalpages * 10 per `return totalpages * 10;`
>> in bringetbitmap()?
>
> Yes, it is just confusing. The correct value is on one level up of
> the tree. It is 204 + 4404 rows removed by index recheck = 4608, so
> the estimate is not only 150x but 733x off :(.
>
> The sequential scan plan shows 204 + 1125498 rows removed by filter =
> 1125702 as the actual table size. However the former plan estimates
> to get 3377106 rows from the index. That is 3x of the table size.
> The selectivity estimation cannot be greater than 1. If I am not
> missing anything, the general statistics of this table should be
> seriously outdated.
>
Hmmm, yeah. It's s bot confusing, and the parallel plan does not improve
the situation either :-(
Arcadiy, can you provide plans with parallel query disabled? Or even
better, produce a test case that reproduces this (using synthetic data,
anonymized data or something like that, if needed).
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2018-07-26 11:39:08 | Re: TupleTableSlot abstraction |
Previous Message | Imai, Yoshikazu | 2018-07-26 10:35:16 | RE: Locking B-tree leafs immediately in exclusive mode |