From: | "Noah M(dot) Daniels" <ndaniels(at)mac(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Strange left outer join performance issue |
Date: | 2007-03-23 22:18:34 |
Message-ID: | 797C9FCF-8C8C-4813-8979-68DF7B70FFF8@mac.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Tom,
You're right; this is postgres 8.0.8. Perhaps upgrading will solve
this issue. Is there any way to get this query to perform better in
postgres 8.0.8?
thanks!
On Mar 23, 2007, at 6:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Noah M. Daniels" <ndaniels(at)mac(dot)com> writes:
>> I have two queries that are very similar, that run on the same table
>> with slightly different conditions. However, despite a similar number
>> of rows returned, the query planner is insisting on a different
>> ordering and different join algorithm, causing a huge performance
>> hit. I'm not sure why the planner is doing the merge join the way it
>> is in the slow case, rather than following a similar plan to the fast
>> case.
>
> It likes the merge join because it predicts (apparently correctly)
> that
> only about 1/14th of the table will need to be scanned. This'd be an
> artifact of the relative ranges of supplier ids in the two tables.
>
> What PG version is this? 8.2 understands about repeated indexscans
> being cheaper than standalone ones, but I get the impression from the
> explain estimates that you may be using something older that's
> overestimating the cost of the nestloop way.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-23 22:22:39 | Re: Strange left outer join performance issue |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-23 22:13:52 | Re: Strange left outer join performance issue |