Re: Poor Plan selected w/ not provided a date/time but selecting date/time from a table

From: Ow Mun Heng <Ow(dot)Mun(dot)Heng(at)wdc(dot)com>
To: Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Poor Plan selected w/ not provided a date/time but selecting date/time from a table
Date: 2007-10-18 01:26:31
Message-ID: 1192670791.27637.6.camel@neuromancer.home.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general


On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 20:37 +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
> Ow Mun Heng wrote:
> > Query2 is way faster mainly because the plan does not choose a seq scan
> > on a table w/ >20million rows.
> > The only difference between Query 1 and query 2 is that the
> > audio_key_dtime is chosen from a table rather than provided on the
> > query.
> >
> > I'm not sure why this is the case and why it chooses such plans.
> > (should I be posting to pg-performance?)
>
> Your query plans don't seem to match your queries. That makes it
> difficult to provide meaningful advice.
>
>

Well, then that makes both you and me(both) stumped. because the 2
queries are exactly the same except for the data part.

Index Cond: ((audit_key_dtime >= $0) AND (audit_key_dtime < $1))

Index Cond: ((audit_key_dtime >= '2007-08-08 18:00:00'::timestamp without time zone)
AND (audit_key_dtime < '2007-08-08 18:01:00'::timestamp without time zone))

This is _the_ only difference between the 2 queries where on one, the
dates are provided, and the other is selected from a table.

I have no idea why the plans are so different between the two.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-10-18 01:47:09 Re: Poor Plan selected w/ not provided a date/time but selecting date/time from a table
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-10-17 23:04:11 Re: problemas zona horaria