Re: Performance query about large tables, lots of concurrent access

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Karl Wright <kwright(at)metacarta(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance query about large tables, lots of concurrent access
Date: 2007-06-19 14:56:15
Message-ID: 28036.1182264975@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Karl Wright <kwright(at)metacarta(dot)com> writes:
> [2007-06-18 09:39:49,797]ERROR Plan: Index Scan using i1181764142395 on
> intrinsiclink (cost=0.00..14177.29 rows=5 width=253)
> [2007-06-18 09:39:49,797]ERROR Plan: Index Cond: ((jobid = $2) AND
> ((childidhash)::text = ($3)::text))
> [2007-06-18 09:39:49,797]ERROR Plan: Filter: ((childid = ($4)::text)
> AND ((isnew = ($5)::bpchar) OR (isnew = ($6)::bpchar)))

>> In this case it looks like the planner is afraid that that's exactly
>> what will happen --- a cost of 14177 suggests that several thousand row
>> fetches are expected to happen, and yet it's only predicting 5 rows out
>> after the filter.

> Well, that's odd, because the hash in question that it is using is the
> SHA-1 hash of a URL. There's essentially one row per URL in this table.

What about isnew?

Also, how many rows do *you* expect out of the query? The planner is
not going to be aware of the hashed relationship between childidhash
and childid --- it'll think those are independent conditions which they
evidently aren't. So it may be that the query really does retrieve
thousands of rows, and the rows=5 estimate is bogus because it's
double-counting the selectivity of the childid condition.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chris Browne 2007-06-19 15:11:19 Re: Maintenance question / DB size anomaly...
Previous Message Joshua_Kramer 2007-06-19 14:54:06 Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] Postgres VS Oracle