Re: Some question - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Yeb Havinga
Subject Re: Some question
Date
Msg-id 4BBC31DC.1080605@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Some question  (Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
Scott Marlowe wrote:
> 2010/3/31 Ľubomír Varga <luvar@plaintext.sk>:
>
>> Hi, stright to my "problem":
>> If I try to select constant 1 from table with two rows, it will be something
>> like this:
>>
>> explain
>> SELECT * FROM t_route
>>        WHERE t_route.route_type_fk = (SELECT id FROM t_route_type WHERE type = 2)
>>        limit 4;
>>
>> "Limit  (cost=1.02..1.91 rows=4 width=2640)"
>> "  InitPlan"
>> "    ->  Seq Scan on t_route_type  (cost=0.00..1.02 rows=1 width=8)"
>> "          Filter: ("type" = 2)"
>> "  ->  Seq Scan on t_route  (cost=0.00..118115.25 rows=535090 width=2640)"
>> "        Filter: (route_type_fk = $0)"
>>
>>
>
> Looking at this it looks like you're using prepared queries, which
> can't make as good of a decision as regular queries because the values
> are opaque to the planner.
>
> Can you provide us with the output of explain analyze of that query?
>
ISTM that the initplan 'outputs' id as $0, so it is not a prepared
query. Maybe EXPLAIN VERBOSE ANALYZE of the query reveals that better.
But both plans show seqscans of the large table, so it is surprising
that the performance is different, if the filter expression uses the
same values. Are you sure the output SELECT id FROM t_route_type WHERE
type = 2 is equal to 1?

regards,
Yeb Havinga


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: query slow; strace output worrisome
Next
From: Sherry.CTR.Zhu@faa.gov
Date:
Subject: Re: LIMIT causes planner to do Index Scan using a less optimal index