От: Andrew Dunstan
Тема: Re: query optimization
Дата: ,
Msg-id: 4F99AFBA.4090605@dunslane.net
(см: обсуждение, исходный текст)
Ответ на: Re: query optimization  (Tom Lane)
Список: pgsql-performance

Скрыть дерево обсуждения

query optimization  (Richard Kojedzinszky, )
 Re: query optimization  ("Kevin Grittner", )
 Re: query optimization  (Tom Lane, )
  Re: query optimization  (Thomas Kellerer, )
   Re: query optimization  (Tom Lane, )
    Re: query optimization  (Andrew Dunstan, )
  Re: query optimization  (Richard Kojedzinszky, )

On 04/26/2012 04:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Kellerer<>  writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote on 26.04.2012 21:17:
>>> Um ... did you analyze all the tables, or just some of them?  I get
>>> sub-millisecond runtimes if all four tables have been analyzed, but it
>>> does seem to pick lousy plans if, say, only a and b have been analyzed.
>> Here it's similar to Richard's experience:
>> Before analyzing the four tables, the first statement yields this plan:
>> [ merge joins ]
>> This continues to stay the plan for about 10-15 repetitions, then it turns to this plan
>> [ hash joins ]
> Hmm.  I see it liking the merge-join plan (with minor variations) with
> or without analyze data, but if just some of the tables have been
> analyzed, it goes for the hash plan which is a good deal slower.  The
> cost estimates aren't that far apart though.  In any case, the only
> reason the merge join is so fast is that the data is perfectly ordered
> in each table; on a less contrived example, it could well be a lot
> slower.

It's not so terribly contrived, is it? It's common enough to have tables
which are append-only and to join them by something that corresponds to
the append order (serial field, timestamp etc.)



В списке pgsql-performance по дате сообщения:

От: Tom Lane
Сообщение: Re: Weird plan variation with recursive CTEs
От: AI Rumman
Сообщение: NOT EXISTS or LEFT JOIN which one is better?