From: | Steve Baldwin <steve(dot)baldwin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: explain plan difference |
Date: | 2019-11-04 04:03:27 |
Message-ID: | CAKE1AiZgvj4TbgSaaCgaUMkHUeKxQ5W9u0G3SobihG-ts0ovxg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Thanks very much for the explanation Tom !! You are correct - there are
dropped columns in the original.
Cheers,
Steve
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 3:01 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Steve Baldwin <steve(dot)baldwin(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I guess the difference doesn't have a huge bearing (as far as I can tell)
> > on the result, but it just seems odd that the inner-most 'Output' step
> > outputs the entire row in the case of the copy and only the required
> field
> > in the case of the original table. What triggers that behaviour?
>
> The plan with the full output row is actually slightly cheaper, or at
> least so the planner thinks, because it saves a projection step.
> I imagine the reason you're not getting that with the original table
> is that there are some dropped column(s) in the original table, forcing
> the projection to be done to get rid of them.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2019-11-04 04:43:58 | Re: Are my autovacuum settings too aggressive for this table? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-11-04 04:01:19 | Re: explain plan difference |