Re: Outer join query plans and performance

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Rich Doughty <rich(at)opusvl(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Outer join query plans and performance
Date: 2005-10-25 14:12:02
Message-ID: 13679.1130249522@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Rich Doughty <rich(at)opusvl(dot)com> writes:
> EXPLAIN SELECT *
> FROM
> tokens.ta_tokens t LEFT JOIN
> tokens.ta_tokenhist h1 ON t.token_id = h1.token_id LEFT JOIN
> tokens.ta_tokenhist h2 ON t.token_id = h2.token_id
> WHERE
> h1.histdate = 'now';

> EXPLAIN SELECT *
> FROM
> tokens.ta_tokens t LEFT JOIN
> tokens.ta_tokenhist h1 ON t.token_id = h1.token_id LEFT JOIN
> tokens.ta_tokenhist h2 ON t.token_id = h2.token_id
> WHERE
> h2.histdate = 'now';

The reason these are different is that the second case constrains only
the last-to-be-joined table, so the full cartesian product of t and h1
has to be formed. If this wasn't what you had in mind, you might be
able to rearrange the order of the LEFT JOINs, but bear in mind that
in general, changing outer-join ordering changes the results. (This
is why the planner won't fix it for you.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Huxton 2005-10-25 14:16:27 Re: Reindex - Is this necessary after a vacuum?
Previous Message Michael Stone 2005-10-25 14:05:49 Re: insertion of bytea