Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org> writes:
> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> However, the error in your original example is far too large to be
>> explained by that, so I think it was tripping over something different.
> Good point. But I generated a bigger data set with the above test case
> and it gets progressively worse with more rows and partitions. (The
> original database has 2x4 billion rows in over 100 partitions)
> Here's a bigger test case, 2GB total (will take a few minutes to
> generate). It gives a total estimate of 3900158, even though the
> Append nodes suggest 13x2406 rows.
On reflection I think this is an artifact of the lack of
inheritance-tree stats in 8.4. The estimated size of the join does
*not* come from the product of the two appendrel sizes shown in EXPLAIN,
because the inner one is a inner indexscan using a parameter from the
outer side (what we would now call a parameterized path). Rather, the
estimated size is join selectivity times outer relation size times inner
relation size. The outer relation size, after applying its restriction
clause, is indeed only 13 rows, but the inner relation size is 60e6 rows
because it has no restriction clause. If we had an accurate join
selectivity estimate that'd be fine, but for lack of any stats about the
inheritance tree eqjoinsel just punts and returns DEFAULT_EQ_SEL, ie
0.005. And that works out to your result.
So, nothing to see here ... 8.4 is just not very good with this type
of problem.
regards, tom lane
