Re: Limit + group + join

From: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tobias Brox <tobias(at)nordicbet(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Limit + group + join
Date: 2005-08-27 02:55:22
Message-ID: 430FD61A.3020902@paradise.net.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Interestingly enough, 7.4.8 and 8.1devel-2005-08-23 all behave the same
as 8.0.3 for me (tables freshly ANALYZEd):

joinlimit=# SELECT version();
version

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PostgreSQL 7.4.8 on i386-unknown-freebsd5.4, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC)
3.4.2 [FreeBSD] 20040728
(1 row)

joinlimit=# EXPLAIN SELECT c.id FROM c JOIN b ON c_id=c.id GROUP BY
c.id ORDER BY c.id DESC LIMIT 5;
QUERY PLAN

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit (cost=10591.36..10591.39 rows=5 width=4)
-> Group (cost=10591.36..10992.02 rows=80131 width=4)
-> Sort (cost=10591.36..10791.69 rows=80131 width=4)
Sort Key: c.id
-> Merge Join (cost=0.00..4064.66 rows=80131 width=4)
Merge Cond: ("outer".id = "inner".c_id)
-> Index Scan using c_pkey on c
(cost=0.00..1411.31 rows=80131 width=4)
-> Index Scan using b_on_c on b
(cost=0.00..1451.72 rows=80172 width=4)
(8 rows)

joinlimit=# EXPLAIN SELECT c.id FROM c JOIN b ON c_id=c.id GROUP BY
c.id ORDER BY c.id LIMIT 5;
QUERY PLAN

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit (cost=0.00..0.27 rows=5 width=4)
-> Group (cost=0.00..4264.99 rows=80131 width=4)
-> Merge Join (cost=0.00..4064.66 rows=80131 width=4)
Merge Cond: ("outer".id = "inner".c_id)
-> Index Scan using c_pkey on c (cost=0.00..1411.31
rows=80131 width=4)
-> Index Scan using b_on_c on b (cost=0.00..1451.72
rows=80172 width=4)
(6 rows)

joinlimit=# SELECT version();
version

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PostgreSQL 8.1devel on i386-unknown-freebsd5.4, compiled by GCC gcc
(GCC) 3.4.2 [FreeBSD] 20040728
(1 row)

joinlimit=# EXPLAIN SELECT c.id FROM c JOIN b ON c_id=c.id GROUP BY
c.id ORDER BY c.id DESC LIMIT 5;
QUERY PLAN

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit (cost=10654.53..10654.55 rows=5 width=4)
-> Group (cost=10654.53..11054.53 rows=80000 width=4)
-> Sort (cost=10654.53..10854.53 rows=80000 width=4)
Sort Key: c.id
-> Merge Join (cost=0.00..4139.44 rows=80000 width=4)
Merge Cond: ("outer".id = "inner".c_id)
-> Index Scan using c_pkey on c
(cost=0.00..1450.00 rows=80000 width=4)
-> Index Scan using b_on_c on b
(cost=0.00..1490.00 rows=80000 width=4)
(8 rows)

joinlimit=# EXPLAIN SELECT c.id FROM c JOIN b ON c_id=c.id GROUP BY
c.id ORDER BY c.id LIMIT 5;
QUERY PLAN

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit (cost=0.00..0.27 rows=5 width=4)
-> Group (cost=0.00..4339.44 rows=80000 width=4)
-> Merge Join (cost=0.00..4139.44 rows=80000 width=4)
Merge Cond: ("outer".id = "inner".c_id)
-> Index Scan using c_pkey on c (cost=0.00..1450.00
rows=80000 width=4)
-> Index Scan using b_on_c on b (cost=0.00..1490.00
rows=80000 width=4)
(6 rows)

The non default server params of relevance are:

shared_buffers = 12000
effective_cache_size = 100000
work_mem/sort_mem = 20480

I did wonder if the highish sort_mem might be a factor, but no, with it
set to 1024 I get the same behaviour (just higher sort cost estimates).

Cheers

Mark

Tom Lane wrote:
>
>
> Which PG version are you using exactly? That mistake looks like an
> artifact of the 8.0 "fuzzy plan cost" patch, which we fixed recently:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2005-07/msg00474.php
>
> But Tobias wasn't happy with 7.4 either, so I'm not sure that the fuzzy
> cost issue explains his results.
>
> As far as the "desc" point goes, the problem is that mergejoins aren't
> capable of dealing with backward sort order, so a merge plan isn't
> considered for that case (or at least, it would have to have a sort
> after it, which pretty much defeats the point for a fast-start plan).
> I have some ideas about fixing this but it won't happen before 8.2.
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2005-08-27 03:03:30 Re: Limit + group + join
Previous Message Michael Fuhr 2005-08-27 01:41:26 Re: Weird performance drop after VACUUM