DIfferent plans for explicit versus implicit join using link table

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От John D. Burger
Тема DIfferent plans for explicit versus implicit join using link table
Дата
Msg-id 7ABD4750-BFC5-4E5A-BD89-2EAF8478B284@mitre.org
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответы Re: DIfferent plans for explicit versus implicit join using link table
Список pgsql-general
Hi -

I have a table of words and a table linking words in various ways:

create table allWords (
   wordID    serial    PRIMARY KEY,
   word        text
);
create unique index ix_allwords_word ON allwords (word);

create table allWordRelations (
   word1ID    integer references allWords,
   word2ID    integer references allWords,
   pos1        integer references posTypes,
   pos2        integer references posTypes,
   relID        integer references allRelationTypes,
   confidence    float,
   primary key (word1ID, word2ID, pos1, pos2, relID)
);
create index ix_allWordRelations_word1_pos1 on allWordRelations
(word1ID, pos1);
create index ix_allWordRelations_word2_pos2 on allWordRelations
(word2ID, pos2);

I have two queries for looking up related words which I think should
be equivalent, but 7.4.8 comes up with very different plans.  The
first query joins the word table to itself explicitly via the
relations table - this is very fast.  The second query uses an IN
against the link table in the where clause, and is very slow.  I'm
sure I can affect this by adding indexes, but I'm mainly trying to
understand what difference the planner is seeing.  EXPLAIN ANALYZE
output is below - can anyone explain?  Are my two queries subtly
different in terms of NULLs, or something like that?  Thanks.

- John Burger
   MITRE


explain analyze select w2.word from allwords w1 join allwordrelations
as r on (w1.wordid = r.word1id) join allwords w2 on (w2.wordid =
r.word2id) where w1.word = 'dogging';

       QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
Nested Loop  (cost=0.00..579.05 rows=81 width=15) (actual
time=0.607..30.509 rows=59 loops=1)
    ->  Nested Loop  (cost=0.00..333.94 rows=81 width=4) (actual
time=0.564..29.032 rows=59 loops=1)
          ->  Index Scan using ix_allwords_word on allwords w1
(cost=0.00..3.49 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.326..0.329 rows=1
loops=1)
                Index Cond: (word = 'dogging'::text)
          ->  Index Scan using ix_allwordrelations_word1_pos1 on
allwordrelations r  (cost=0.00..329.36 rows=87 width=8) (actual
time=0.220..28.564 rows=59 loops=1)
                Index Cond: ("outer".wordid = r.word1id)
    ->  Index Scan using allwords_pkey on allwords w2
(cost=0.00..3.01 rows=1 width=19) (actual time=0.018..0.020 rows=1
loops=59)
          Index Cond: (w2.wordid = "outer".word2id)
Total runtime: 30.713 ms



explain analyze select w2.word from allwords w1, allwords w2 where
(w1.wordid, w2.wordid) in (select word1id, word2id from
allwordrelations ) and w1.word = 'dogging';

QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Nested Loop  (cost=760422.86..817628.29 rows=1 width=15) (actual
time=99277.403..111291.862 rows=59 loops=1)
    ->  Hash Join  (cost=760422.86..817625.27 rows=1 width=4) (actual
time=99277.110..111270.093 rows=59 loops=1)
          Hash Cond: ("outer".word1id = "inner".wordid)
          ->  Unique  (cost=760419.36..794740.32 rows=4576128
width=8) (actual time=96713.791..107843.446 rows=4302242 loops=1)
                ->  Sort  (cost=760419.36..771859.68 rows=4576128
width=8) (actual time=96713.785..102973.088 rows=4576035 loops=1)
                      Sort Key: allwordrelations.word1id,
allwordrelations.word2id
                      ->  Seq Scan on allwordrelations
(cost=0.00..79409.28 rows=4576128 width=8) (actual
time=0.008..8668.255 rows=4576035 loops=1)
          ->  Hash  (cost=3.49..3.49 rows=1 width=4) (actual
time=0.078..0.078 rows=0 loops=1)
                ->  Index Scan using ix_allwords_word on allwords w1
(cost=0.00..3.49 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.067..0.070 rows=1
loops=1)
                      Index Cond: (word = 'dogging'::text)
    ->  Index Scan using allwords_pkey on allwords w2
(cost=0.00..3.01 rows=1 width=19) (actual time=0.360..0.363 rows=1
loops=59)
          Index Cond: (w2.wordid = "outer".word2id)
Total runtime: 111292.449 ms



В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Gerhard Wiesinger
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Fw: PostgreSQL Performance Tuning
Следующее
От: Jon Sime
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Feature request - have postgresql log warning when new sub-release comes out.