Re: Planner problems in 8.2.4 and 8.2.5 (was: Possible planner bug/regression introduced in 8.2.5)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Planner problems in 8.2.4 and 8.2.5 (was: Possible planner bug/regression introduced in 8.2.5) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 634.1194383911@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Planner problems in 8.2.4 and 8.2.5 (was: Possible planner bug/regression introduced in 8.2.5) (Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Planner problems in 8.2.4 and 8.2.5 (was: Possible planner bug/regression introduced in 8.2.5)
Re: Planner problems in 8.2.4 and 8.2.5 (was: Possible planner bug/regression introduced in 8.2.5) |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com> writes: > I don't have a full test case yet, but I did finally manage to get an > explain analyze to finish in a sane amount of time on 8.2.5. Attached > are two cleaned up explain analyze results, using the exact same data > directory but different executables: one is 8.2.3 and returns as > expected, the other is 8.2.5, which generates a slow plan despite any > fiddling with geqo/join_collapse_limit, etc. The cost is the same, but > it makes a wrong turn partway through the plan. Is there a reason you rounded off most of the costs? It looks like the estimated costs of the two join types are nearly equal, and so it's pure chance which one gets chosen. The real problem seems to be the misestimation here: > ->Seq Scan on orders_smaller m (C=0..742 R=1) (AT=0..11 R=9247 L=1) > Filter: ((order_number)::text !~~ '%.%'::text) With a base scan estimate that's off by four orders of magnitude, there's no reason at all to expect that the join plan above it will be very suitable :-( This might be a bug in the LIKE estimator (if so, it's in 8.2.3 as well). I don't have time to look closer right now, but can you show us the pg_stats row for orders_smaller.order_number? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: