Re: Strange query planner behavior
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Strange query planner behavior |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFj8pRB4CLf-m3KMjAiQ3QUpLCX38wiJTKzzuyyAE6MCOeff4w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Strange query planner behavior (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Strange query planner behavior
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
so 30. 11. 2019 v 10:55 odesílatel Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> napsal:
Hiso 30. 11. 2019 v 10:31 odesílatel EffiSYS / Martin Querleu <martin.querleu@effisys.fr> napsal:Hello
I have a strange problem with the query planner on Postgresql 11.5 on
Debian stretch, the plan differs between the following 2 requests:
- SELECT * FROM LIVRAISON WHERE ID_MASTER = 10 which uses a btree index
on ID_MASTER (the table has 1M rows). Everything is normal
- SELECT * FROM LIVRAISON WHERE ID_MASTER = (SELECT 10) which uses a seq
scan and is 3000 times slower
I don't understand how the planner cannot consider that a subselect with
an = is equivalent to having = VALUE (the subselect either returning 1
row or NULL)
I don't have the same behavior on other column with indexes of the same
table, maybe it's because 99% or the table has ID_MASTER = 0? I can
understand that if the value returned by the subquery is 0 the seqscan
could be faster (in our case it is still slower than index scan but only
by 2 times), but if the subquery does not return 0 in no case the
seqscan could be faster. The question is why is the subquery not
calculated before choosing wether to use the index or not since it will
return a single value?
Thanks for your reply and sorry if the question is stupidplease try1. run vacuum analyze on LIVRAISON2. send result of EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM ... for both cases
3. do you have some custom settings of planner configuration variables like random_page_cost, seq_page_cost?
here is a tool for sharing explains https://explain.depesz.com/RegardsPavel
Best regards
Martin Querleu
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: