From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Cost estimation problem on seq scan in a loop |
Date: | 2013-12-16 23:41:18 |
Message-ID: | CAMkU=1zHSXESAZhqH5m5oabqV8Je2iGFPAX=SK2zbGv5ZOsvBA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
While doing ad hoc queries I've seen several different problems that all
seem to be variations on a theme.
The plan comes out looking like this:
Nested Loop (cost=826867.95..877038.04 rows=1 width=125)
Join Filter: (foo.bar = smallish_table.bar)
-> Something Complicated (cost=826867.95..876800.28 rows=1 width=81)
.....
-> Seq Scan on smallish_table (cost=0.00..142.89 rows=7389 width=44)
The estimate of rows=1 for Something Complicated is wrong and you really
get 1000 or 100,000 rows. Meaning the seq scan on smallish_table gets
iterated a lot, and the time really adds up.
It would be great if Something Complicated had the correct row estimate,
but since I've seen this situation arise with a lot of different Something
Complicated that don't have much to do with each other (although usually an
antijoin of some kind is involved) , there is little reason to think we can
squash every one of them.
Is there some principled way to go about teaching the planner that hashing
smallish_table on the join filter key is a cheap insurance policy against
underestimating the row count of the outer loop?
Cheers,
Jeff
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-16 23:59:12 | Re: planner missing a trick for foreign tables w/OR conditions |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-12-16 22:49:32 | Re: GIN improvements part 1: additional information |