Re: Weird seqscan node plan

>
> Try increasing the following parameters to 14 (or even 16, if you are not sure about number of tables involved):
>
> geqo_threshold = 14
>
> from_collapse_limit = 14
>
> join_collapse_limit = 14
>
> “about 12” is too close to default limit, 12.
>
> Regards,
>
> Igor Neyman

Hi Igor,

Is "set geqo = off;" not enough to fully disable geqo?
I know what is geqo and know about limit when it is in action. Moreover, I actually tried to set these parameters to 100 and it doesn't help

> Hi Игорь
>
> I suggest running Explain and Analyze to see what the actual query results vs the planner are ,
>
> Post the SQL code

Hi Justin,
let me show 2 variants of "explain analyze" which differs only by actual rows returned by inner node (9th row):

1st case: https://explain.depesz.com/s/lA4f
45358 rows actually returned and postgres decided to join each row of 45358 set with each row in yankee_foxtrot using seq scan:
Seq Scan on yankee_foxtrot foxtrot_bravo (cost=0.000..267.670 rows=7,467 width=13) (actual time=0.003..1.090 rows=7,467 loops=45,358)
and then filter it:
Rows Removed by Join Filter: 338685224
it was an awful choice =)

2st: case: https://explain.depesz.com/s/zkKY
4130 rows returned and now index only scan in action

Why planner mistakes in determining the number of rows (every time planner expects only 1 row) in this step I can understand - inner nodes do some joins (inner and outer with filtration) and it's hard to predict result.
But what I can't understand is why seq scan when it is always slower than index. Forget to mention that join condition is by unique key. So, when planner expects only 1 row then it must join only one row from second table!

>
> Also pull this part of the query out and run it by itself to see if the "Planner" changes how it joins these two tables.
>
> May need to increase the statistics collected
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/planner-stats.html
>
> also read this
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/explicit-joins.html

In this step of planning statistics can't help (let me know if I'm wrong). Using stats, planner knows everything about second table (yankee_foxtrot) but It can only suggest approximate stats of first set (and it actually wrongs about it)
And yes I know about the possibility of explicit joining

> forgot to state
>
> Generally, it's index scan -> bitmap index scan -> sequential scan, the more rows expected to be retrieved to number of rows in the table the more likely the planner will go to sequential scan

The key word is "expected" here I assume and according to expectation of planner it must be only 1 row...

So, to conclude: I know how to make my query faster (how to exclude this "seq scan") but what I really what to understand: WHY seq scan is in my plan? Why planner thinks it's the best choice?