| From: | Francisco Olarte <folarte(at)peoplecall(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | stanislaw(dot)skonieczny(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17560: Planner can not find plan with lowest cost |
| Date: | 2022-07-29 07:30:59 |
| Message-ID: | CA+bJJbwPcrhW3zgDFWqDW78gJNLdtw_xC05oBztx5s3hqfArhg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Stanislaw:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 at 20:57, PG Bug reporting form
<noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
> create table ss_temp_table1 as select id, v1, v2 from ss_d order by id desc
> limit 100000;
...
> FROM ss_d AS d
> JOIN ss_temp_table1 AS t1 ON t1.id = d.id AND t1.v1 = d.v1 AND t1.v2
> = d.v2
Do your real tables/queries have the same kind of redudant condition (
i.e., "AND t1.v1 = d.v1 AND t1.v2" is redundant due to id being a "PK"
)?
If so you could try omitting it ( and maybe try w & w/o seqscan
enabled too ) to see if this condition is leading the optimizer to
believe a plan is much cheaper than it really is.
If not you may be hitting a different problem with similar appearance.
Francisco Olarte.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2022-07-29 09:14:12 | BUG #17561: Server crashes on executing row() with very long argument list |
| Previous Message | Ajin Cherian | 2022-07-29 07:05:46 | Re: Excessive number of replication slots for 12->14 logical replication |