Re: Slight change in query leads to unexpected change in query plan

Tom Lane wrote:
> Jack Orenstein  writes:
>>    Limit  (cost=0.00..324.99 rows=100 width=451)
>>      ->  Index Scan using t_pkey on t  (cost=0.00..296027.98 rows=91088 width=451)
>>            Index Cond: (pk > 1000000000)
> 
>> Adding the value restriction at the top of this query plan wouldn't increase the 
>> cost very much.
> 
> You're missing the point: with the value restriction in place, it's
> estimating that it will probably have to scan all 91000 rows (because
> there are fewer than 100 satisfying the value restriction).  And that
> is going to cost somewhere north of 296027 cost units --- the cost
> shown, plus 91000 invocations of the value-restriction check.
> Which is considerably more than the cost of the other plan.

I see -- the optimizer is calculating that it will have to examine a very large 
fraction of the rows.

Actually, pk and value are highly correlated. If a row gets past the index scan, 
odds are very high that the value predicate will evaluate to true. So I am sure 
that the index scan is the right way to go. I'm just trying to convince the 
optimizer of this.

One thing I am considering is introducing a function with high execution cost. 
E.g., if I do this:

     create function return_input(bytea) returns bytea
     as '
     begin
         return $1;
     end;
     ' language 'plpgsql' cost 10000;

     explain
     select *
     from t
     where pk > 1000000
     and return_input(value = 'asdf'::bytea)
     order by pk
     limit 100;

then I get the plan I want.

  Limit  (cost=0.00..563490.32 rows=100 width=451)
    ->  Index Scan using t_pkey on t  (cost=0.00..34226402.07 rows=6074 width=451)
          Index Cond: (pk > 1000000)
          Filter: (return_input(value) = 'asdf'::bytea)


Is there a more elegant way of forcing the plan that I want?

Jack