Re: why query plan for the inner SELECT of WHERE x IN is wrong, but when run the inner query alone is OK?
От | Scott Carey |
---|---|
Тема | Re: why query plan for the inner SELECT of WHERE x IN is wrong, but when run the inner query alone is OK? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | a1ec7d000808092025ja0419f2ka2b1a323c36f439a@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: why query plan for the inner SELECT of WHERE x IN is wrong, but when run the inner query alone is OK? (Miernik <public@public.miernik.name>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
It is hardware dependent. The estimates are not time estimates, but on an arbitrary scale.
On the server I work with, the estimates are almost always 10x larger than the run times, and sometimes more than 50x.
(many GBs RAM, 8 CPU cores, more than 10 disks, standard optimizer settings other than statistics sample sizes and increased common values for columns).
-Scott
On the server I work with, the estimates are almost always 10x larger than the run times, and sometimes more than 50x.
(many GBs RAM, 8 CPU cores, more than 10 disks, standard optimizer settings other than statistics sample sizes and increased common values for columns).
-Scott
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Miernik <public@public.miernik.name> wrote:
Miernik <public@public.miernik.name> wrote:> I present a SELECT uid plan with the 1000 table also below, just to beIf I reduce the number of rows in cnts to 100, I can actually make an
> sure, this is the "bad" plan, that takes forever:
>
> miernik=> EXPLAIN SELECT uid FROM cnts WHERE uid IN (SELECT uid FROM alog WHERE pid = 3452654 AND o = 1);
> QUERY PLAN
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Nested Loop IN Join (cost=0.00..3532.70 rows=1 width=4)
> -> Seq Scan on cnts (cost=0.00..26.26 rows=1026 width=4)
> -> Index Scan using alog_uid_idx on alog (cost=0.00..297.32 rows=1 width=4)
> Index Cond: ((alog.uid)::integer = (cnts.uid)::integer)
> Filter: ((alog.pid = 3452654::numeric) AND (alog.o = 1::numeric))
> (5 rows)
EXPLAIN ANALYZE with this query plan finish in reasonable time:
miernik=> EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT uid FROM cnts WHERE uid IN (SELECT uid FROM alog WHERE pid = 555949 AND odp = 1);
QUERY PLAN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nested Loop IN Join (cost=0.00..3585.54 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=51831.430..267844.815 rows=7 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on cnts (cost=0.00..14.00 rows=700 width=4) (actual time=0.005..148.464 rows=100 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using alog_uid_idx on alog (cost=0.00..301.02 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=2676.959..2676.959 rows=0 loops=100)Index Cond: ((alog.uid)::integer = (cnts.uid)::integer)Filter: ((alog.pid = 555949::numeric) AND (alog.odp = 1::numeric))
Total runtime: 267844.942 ms
(6 rows)
The real running times are about 10 times more than the estimates. Is
that normal?
--
Miernik
http://miernik.name/
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: