Re: sub select performance due to seq scans

From: H Hale <hhale21(at)rogers(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: sub select performance due to seq scans
Date: 2006-07-31 16:09:02
Message-ID: 20060731160902.37302.qmail@web88007.mail.re2.yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Tom,

It is unique.

Indexes:
"flatomfilesysentry_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (objectid)
"capsa_flatomfilesysentry_name_idx" btree (name)
Foreign-key constraints:
"objectid" FOREIGN KEY (objectid) REFERENCES capsa_sys.master(objectid) ON DELETE CASCADE


Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote: H Hale writes:
> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on flatomfilesysentry (cost=2.00..274.38 rows=3238 width=30) (actual time=0.011..0.013 rows=1 loops=6473)
> Recheck Cond: (flatomfilesysentry.objectid = "outer".dstobj)
> -> Bitmap Index Scan on flatomfilesysentry_pkey (cost=0.00..2.00 rows=3238 width=0) (actual time=0.007..0.007 rows=1 loops=6473)
> Index Cond: (flatomfilesysentry.objectid = "outer".dstobj)

Well, there's our estimation failure: 3238 rows expected, one row
actual.

What is the data distribution of flatomfilesysentry.objectid?
It looks from this example like it is unique or nearly so,
but the planner evidently does not think that.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Axel Rau 2006-07-31 16:19:06 Re: directory tree query with big planner variation
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2006-07-31 16:04:26 Re: PostgreSQL scalability on Sun UltraSparc T1