Re: bad performances using hashjoin

Tom Lane wrote:

>However: the reason the second plan wins is because there are zero rows
>fetched from sat_request, and so the bulk of the plan is never executed
>at all. I doubt the second plan would win if there were any matching
>sat_request rows.
>
That's what I thought at first, but if you look more closely, that's
having very little impact on either the cost or actual time:

-> Index Scan using idx_id_url_sat_request on sat_request sr (cost=0.00..3.04 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.031..0.031 rows=0 loops=1)

The real problem appears to be here:

-> Hash Left Join (cost=16.14..89.16 rows=1196 width=159) (actual time=3.504..809.262 rows=1203 loops=1)

As Gaetano points out in his follow-up post, the problem still exists
after he removed the sorts:

-> Hash Left Join (cost=16.14..80.19 rows=1196 width=4) (actual time=7.291..13.620 rows=1203 loops=1)

The planner is not breaking up the outer join in his v_packages view:
SELECT *
FROM packages p LEFT OUTER JOIN package_security ps USING (id_package)

It's not being selective at all with packages, despite id_package being
the link to sat_request.

If this is too complex for the planner, could he re-arrange his outer
join so that's it's processed later? If he puts it in his actual query,
for instance, will the planner flatten it out anyway?