Re: explain plan difference

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
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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