Re: bad execution plan for subselects containing windowing-function

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andreas Kretschmer <akretschmer(at)spamfence(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: bad execution plan for subselects containing windowing-function
Date: 2010-01-14 17:42:05
Message-ID: 25915.1263490925@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Andreas Kretschmer <akretschmer(at)spamfence(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I see no bug here. Your second query asks for a much more complicated
>> computation, it's not surprising it takes longer.

> But sorry, I disagree. It is the same query with the same result. I can't see
> how the queries should return different results.

In the first query

select id, avg(value) over (partition by value) from values where id = 50 order by id;

the avg() calculations are being done over only rows with id = 50. In
the second query

select * from (select id, avg(value) over (partition by value) from values order by id) foo where id = 50;

they are being done over all rows. In this particular example you
happen to get the same result, but that's just because "avg(foo) over
partition by foo" is a dumb example --- it will necessarily just yield
identically foo. In more realistic computations the results would be
different.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2010-01-14 18:01:50 Re: Slow "Select count(*) ..." query on table with 60 Mio. rows
Previous Message Andreas Kretschmer 2010-01-14 17:30:25 Re: bad execution plan for subselects containing windowing-function