Re: second CTE kills perf

Hi, thanks for all. I replaced row_number() with some computed int which speeds up a lot the query.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

On Tuesday, June 22nd, 2021 at 15:53, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Nicolas Seinlet nicolas(at)seinlet(dot)com writes:
>

> > I'm trying to understand this behaviour and the limits of CTE, when they reach the limits, when they cannot receive parameters from a caller, ... I'm running a query on PostgreSQL 10 with a cte. the query runs in ~ 10 seconds. If I add a second CTE with the same query as the previous one and select * from second_cte as query, it now runs in ~ 10 minutes.
>

> > oversimplified example:
> >

> > 10 seconds version:
> >

> > | WITH cte1 AS (SELECT x,y,z FROM table) SELECT row_number() over(),x,y,z FROM cte1 WHERE x=32;
>

> > 10 minutes version:
> >

> > | WITH cte1 AS (SELECT x,y,z FROM table), cte2 AS (SELECT row_number() over(),x,y,z FROM cte1) SELECT * FROM cte2 WHERE x=32;
>

> [ shrug... ] You are asking for two different computations, and the
>

> second one is far more expensive.
>

> In the first case, the WHERE x=32 clause is applied before the window
>

> function, so we can (indeed must) filter out all rows not having x=32
>

> before doing the window function.
>

> In the second case, WHERE x=32 is applied above/after the window
>

> function. We cannot push down the WHERE to before the window function.
>

> (In this case, filtering beforehand would obviously change the results
>

> of row_number, but in general we don't know enough about window function
>

> behavior to risk such changes.) So row_number has to be computed over
>

> the entire contents of the "table", and that's not cheap.
>

> It does surprise me a bit that row_number is quite that expensive,
>

> but if you are expecting equivalent results from these two queries,
>

> you're simply wrong.
>

> regards, tom lane