Обсуждение: A limit clause can cause a poor index choice

The attached script builds a 10G test table which demonstrates a
problem that we have in production with postgresql 12.3-1.pgdg18.04+1
on ubuntu linux. Indexes:

test_orders_o_date_idx btree(o_date)
test_orders_customer_id_o_date_idx btree(customer_id, o_date)

We query for the most recent orders for sets of customers, and
sometimes none of those customers have any orders and the results are
empty:

explain analyze select * from test_orders where
customer_id=any(ARRAY[9993,9997,9912,9954,9100,9101,9102,9234,9500,9512])
order by o_date desc;

    QUERY PLAN

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Sort  (cost=24848.96..24870.67 rows=8686 width=1839) (actual
time=1.101..1.102 rows=0 loops=1)
   Sort Key: o_date DESC
   Sort Method: quicksort  Memory: 25kB
   ->  Index Scan using test_orders_customer_id_o_date_idx on
test_orders  (cost=0.43..17361.20 rows=8686 width=1839) (actual
time=1.047..1.047 rows=0 loops=1)
         Index Cond: (customer_id = ANY
('{9993,9997,9912,9954,9100,9101,9102,9234,9500,9512}'::integer[]))
 Planning Time: 3.821 ms
 Execution Time: 1.174 ms
(7 rows)

So far so good. But if we add a limit clause to the query then the
plan goes very wrong:

explain analyze select * from test_orders where
customer_id=any(ARRAY[9993,9997,9912,9954,9100,9101,9102,9234,9500,9512])
order by o_date desc limit 10;

      QUERY PLAN

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Limit  (cost=0.43..1660.98 rows=10 width=1839) (actual
time=4990.424..4990.424 rows=0 loops=1)
   ->  Index Scan Backward using test_orders_o_date_idx on test_orders
 (cost=0.43..1442355.43 rows=8686 width=1839) (actual
time=4990.423..4990.423 rows=0 loops=1)
         Filter: (customer_id = ANY
('{9993,9997,9912,9954,9100,9101,9102,9234,9500,9512}'::integer[]))
         Rows Removed by Filter: 5000000
 Planning Time: 0.063 ms
 Execution Time: 4990.435 ms


Is there something we can adjust to get it to prefer
test_orders_customer_id_o_date_idx even when there's a limit clause ?

On Tue, 19 May 2020 at 21:56, Mohamed Wael Khobalatte
<mkhobalatte@grubhub.com> wrote:

> I believe a second ordering, by id desc, will get your query to use the right index, and shouldn't be functionally
differentfrom what you would expect.
 

Thanks, that works nicely on our production table, even with much
larger sets of customer_id values.

> What happens when you raise the limit? Say to a 1000?

A limit of 1000 makes it choose the fast plan. A limit of 100 causes
it to choose the fast plan if I raise the stats target on that column
to 250 or above, otherwise not.