John A Meinel <john(at)arbash-meinel(dot)com> writes:
> Actually, you probably don't want enable_seqscan=off, you should try:
> SET enable_nestloop TO off.
> The problem is that it is estimating there will only be 44 rows, but in
> reality there are 13M rows. It almost definitely should be doing a
> seqscan with a sort and merge join.
Not nestloops anyway.
> I don't understand how postgres could get the number of rows that wrong.
No stats, or out-of-date stats is the most likely bet.
> I can't figure out exactly what is where from the formatting, but the query that seems misestimated is:
> -> Index Scan using "IX_ClimateId" on "ClimateChangeModel40" (cost=0.00..1063711.75 rows=265528 width=20) (actual time=28.311..17212.703 rows=13276368 loops=1)
> Index Cond: ("outer"."ClimateId" = "ClimateChangeModel40"."ClimateId")
Yeah, that's what jumped out at me too. It's not the full explanation
for the join number being so far off, but this one at least you have a
chance to fix by updating the stats on ClimateChangeModel40.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Thomas F.O'Connell||Date: 2005-04-24 02:31:13|
|Subject: Re: pgbench Comparison of 7.4.7 to 8.0.2 |
|Previous:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2005-04-23 23:53:16|
|Subject: Re: Bad n_distinct estimation; hacks suggested?|