Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [GENERAL] Planner picking topsey turvey plan?

From: Glyn Astill <glynastill(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Planner picking topsey turvey plan?
Date: 2008-12-06 20:33:14
Message-ID: 19513.71606.qm@web23602.mail.ird.yahoo.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-adminpgsql-general
Anyone?


--- On Fri, 5/12/08, Glyn Astill <glynastill(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk> wrote:

> From: Glyn Astill <glynastill(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk>
> Subject: [GENERAL] Planner picking topsey turvey plan?
> To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Date: Friday, 5 December, 2008, 2:23 PM
> Hi people,
> 
> Does anyone know how I can change what I'm doing to get
> pgsql to pick a better plan?
> 
> I'll explain what I've done below but please
> forgive me if I interpret the plans wrong as I try to
> describe, I've split it into 4 points to try and ease
> the mess of pasting in the plans..
> 
> 
> 1) I've created a view "orders" that joins
> two tables "credit" and "mult_ord"
> together as below:
> 
> CREATE VIEW orders AS
>   SELECT b.mult_ref, a.show, MIN(a.transno) AS
> "lead_transno", COUNT(a.transno) AS
> "parts", SUM(a.tickets) AS "items",
> SUM(a.value) AS "value"
>   FROM (credit a LEFT OUTER JOIN mult_ord b ON a.transno =
> b.transno) 
>   GROUP BY b.mult_ref, a.show;
> 
> 
> 
> 2) And an explain on that view comes out as below, it's
> using the correct index for the field show on
> "credit" which doesn't look too bad to me:
> 
> DB=# explain select a.artist, a.date, b.mult_ref, b.items,
> b.parts from (show a inner join orders b on a.code = b.show)
> where b.show = 357600;
>                                                QUERY PLAN
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Nested Loop  (cost=15050.79..15099.68 rows=1013 width=70)
>    ->  Index Scan using show_index01 on show a 
> (cost=0.00..8.37 rows=1 width=26)
>          Index Cond: (code = 357600::numeric)
>    ->  HashAggregate  (cost=15050.79..15071.05 rows=1013
> width=39)
>          ->  Nested Loop Left Join  (cost=0.00..15035.60
> rows=1013 width=39)
>                ->  Index Scan using credit_index04 on
> credit a  (cost=0.00..4027.30 rows=1013 width=31)
>                      Index Cond: (show = 357600::numeric)
>                ->  Index Scan using mult_ord_index02 on
> mult_ord b  (cost=0.00..10.85 rows=1 width=17)
>                      Index Cond: (a.transno = b.transno)
> (9 rows)
> 
> 
> 
> 3) Then I have a table called "show" that is
> indexed on the artist field, and a plan for listing the
> shows for an artist is as below, again this doesn't look
> too bad to me, as it's using the index on artist.
> 
> DB=# explain select * from show where artist =
> 'ALKALINE TRIO';
>                                  QUERY PLAN
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Bitmap Heap Scan on show  (cost=9.59..582.41 rows=153
> width=348)
>    Recheck Cond: ((artist)::text = 'ALKALINE
> TRIO'::text)
>    ->  Bitmap Index Scan on show_index07 
> (cost=0.00..9.56 rows=153 width=0)
>          Index Cond: ((artist)::text = 'ALKALINE
> TRIO'::text)
> (4 rows)
> 
> 
> 
> 4) So.. I guess I can join "show" ->
> "orders", expecting an index scan on
> "show" for the artist, then an index scan on
> "orders" for each show.
> 
> However it seems the planner has other ideas, it just looks
> backwards to me:
> 
> DB=# explain select a.artist, a.date, b.mult_ref, b.items,
> b.parts from (show a inner join orders b on a.code = b.show)
> where artist = 'ALKALINE TRIO';
>                                              QUERY PLAN
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Hash Join  (cost=1576872.96..1786175.37 rows=1689
> width=70)
>    Hash Cond: (a.show = a.code)
>    ->  GroupAggregate  (cost=1576288.64..1729424.39
> rows=4083620 width=39)
>          ->  Sort  (cost=1576288.64..1586497.69
> rows=4083620 width=39)
>                Sort Key: b.mult_ref, a.show
>                ->  Hash Left Join 
> (cost=321406.05..792886.22 rows=4083620 width=39)
>                      Hash Cond: (a.transno = b.transno)
>                      ->  Seq Scan on credit a 
> (cost=0.00..267337.20 rows=4083620 width=31)
>                      ->  Hash 
> (cost=160588.80..160588.80 rows=8759380 width=17)
>                            ->  Seq Scan on mult_ord b 
> (cost=0.00..160588.80 rows=8759380 width=17)
>    ->  Hash  (cost=582.41..582.41 rows=153 width=26)
>          ->  Bitmap Heap Scan on show a 
> (cost=9.59..582.41 rows=153 width=26)
>                Recheck Cond: ((artist)::text =
> 'ALKALINE TRIO'::text)
>                ->  Bitmap Index Scan on show_index07 
> (cost=0.00..9.56 rows=153 width=0)
>                      Index Cond: ((artist)::text =
> 'ALKALINE TRIO'::text)
> (15 rows)
> 
> Any idea if I can get around this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list
> (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general


      

In response to

Responses

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2008-12-06 20:35:50
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Planner picking topsey turvey plan?
Previous:From: Milen A. RadevDate: 2008-12-06 19:49:01
Subject: Re: Change in behavior of string concat operator

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2008-12-06 20:35:50
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Planner picking topsey turvey plan?
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2008-12-06 19:44:17
Subject: Re: posible BUG on psql... or maybe worst

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group