Re: Changing optimizations
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Changing optimizations |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3296.994349152@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Changing optimizations (Philip Molter <philip@datafoundry.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Changing optimizations
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Hmm. Nothing out of the ordinary about the table schemas. The relevant bits of the query seem to be > FROM percept p > INNER JOIN perceptType pt ON pt.ptid=p.ptid > AND pt.runinterval IS NOT NULL > WHERE p.deleted=0 AND UNIX_TIMESTAMP( p.nextrun )<=NOW() AND > pt.runinterval IS NOT NULL AND p.running=0 AND h.active=1 What seems to be happening is that as you repeatedly VACUUM ANALYZE, the statistics shift causing a shift in the estimated number of percept rows that match the WHERE clauses. As that estimate rises, you get a change in the selected plan types for the later joins, in a direction that isn't favorable if the correct number of rows is small. But it seems odd that you'd get a factor-of-100 change in that estimate if the true underlying data distribution isn't changing much. Could you keep track of the results of these two queries: select * from pg_class where relname = 'percept'; select attname,attdispersion,s.* from pg_statistic s, pg_attribute a, pg_class c where starelid = c.oid and attrelid = c.oid and staattnum = attnum and relname = 'percept'; (this is for 7.1, s/attdispersion/attdisbursion/ if you're using 7.0) and see how they change between the state where you're getting a good plan and the state where you're getting a not-so-good plan? Another possibility is that what looks to be the same bottom-level join plan isn't really the same, but is using different restriction/join clauses for some weird reason. It would be good to look at EXPLAIN VERBOSE output not just EXPLAIN output for the two plans, just to rule that out. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: