Re: Strange query planner behavior

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Pavel Stehule
Тема Re: Strange query planner behavior
Дата
Msg-id CAFj8pRBYY9D0UW44=AKeBG8BJXq4NHA4WqAofLDQWAUFCfLQXA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Strange query planner behavior  (EffiSYS / Martin Querleu <martin.querleu@effisys.fr>)
Ответы Re: Strange query planner behavior  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Re: Strange query planner behavior  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-bugs
Hi

so 30. 11. 2019 v 10:31 odesílatel EffiSYS / Martin Querleu <martin.querleu@effisys.fr> napsal:
Hello

I have a strange problem with the query planner on Postgresql 11.5 on
Debian stretch, the plan differs between the following 2 requests:

- SELECT * FROM LIVRAISON WHERE ID_MASTER = 10 which uses a btree index
on ID_MASTER (the table has 1M rows). Everything is normal
- SELECT * FROM LIVRAISON WHERE ID_MASTER = (SELECT 10) which uses a seq
scan and is 3000 times slower

I don't understand how the planner cannot consider that a subselect with
an = is equivalent to having = VALUE (the subselect either returning 1
row or NULL)

I don't have the same behavior on other column with indexes of the same
table, maybe it's because 99% or the table has ID_MASTER = 0? I can
understand that if the value returned by the subquery is 0 the seqscan
could be faster (in our case it is still slower than index scan but only
by 2 times), but if the subquery does not return 0 in no case the
seqscan could be faster. The question is why is the subquery not
calculated before choosing wether to use the index or not since it will
return a single value?

Thanks for your reply and sorry if the question is stupid

please try

1. run vacuum analyze on LIVRAISON
2. send result of EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM ... for both cases

here is a tool for sharing explains https://explain.depesz.com/

Regards

Pavel

Best regards
Martin Querleu


В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Petr Fedorov
Дата:
Сообщение: Since '2001-09-09 01:46:40'::timestamp microseconds are lost whenextracting epoch
Следующее
От: Pavel Stehule
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Strange query planner behavior