Re: 7.4.7: strange planner decision

Roman Neuhauser wrote:
>>Because you don't have an index on "base" for the files table.
>
>
>     I added one, ran vacuum full analyze fix.files, and:
>
>     callrec32=# \d fix.files
>                   Table "fix.files"
>      Column |          Type          | Modifiers
>     --------+------------------------+-----------
>      dir    | character varying(255) |
>      base   | character varying(255) |
>     Indexes:
>         "base_storename_idx" btree (base, ((((dir)::text || '/'::text) || (base)::text)))
>         "ff_baseonly_idx" btree (base)
>         "ff_storename_idx" btree (((((dir)::text || '/'::text) || (base)::text)))
>
>     callrec32=# explain select fd.base from fix.dups fd join fix.files ff using (base);
>                                      QUERY PLAN
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      Hash Join  (cost=5340.00..292675.06 rows=176161 width=44)
>        Hash Cond: (("outer".base)::text = ("inner".base)::text)
>        ->  Seq Scan on files ff  (cost=0.00..117301.58 rows=5278458 width=41)
>        ->  Hash  (cost=3436.60..3436.60 rows=176160 width=44)
>              ->  Seq Scan on dups fd  (cost=0.00..3436.60 rows=176160 width=44)
>     (5 rows)
>
>     Which is exactly what I expected. Using left prefix of a multicolumn
>     index normally works just fine, thank you.

Couldn't figure out what you meant here - had to go back and re-read
your index definitions. Sorry - missed the (base, ...) on the front of
base_storename_idx.

What happens to the plan if you SET enable_seqscan=false; first? It's
presumably getting the row-estimate right, so unless there's terrible
correlation on "base" in the files table I can only assume it's getting
the cost estimates horribly wrong.

--
   Richard Huxton
   Archonet Ltd