Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Query planner unaware of possibly best plan

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Denes Daniel <panther-d(at)freemail(dot)hu>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Query planner unaware of possibly best plan
Date: 2007-09-21 17:49:33
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 17:36 +0200, Denes Daniel wrote:

> Even though I forced the nested loop plan using both indexes (that 
> returns the rows in the correct order), there is a needless sort step on 
> the top, consuming half of the time even on such small tables.
> Now it's clear why the planner did not choose this plan, why I had to 
> force it: because it isn't the best if the sort is still there.

Ordering by parent, child is fairly common but the variation you've got
here isn't that common. You'd need to make a case considering all the
alternatives; nobody will agree without a balanced case that includes
what is best for everyone.

Your EXPLAIN looks edited. Have you also edited the sort costs? They
look slightly higher than we might expect. Please provide the full
normal EXPLAIN output.

  Simon Riggs

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2007-09-21 17:51:57
Subject: Re: Low CPU Usage
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2007-09-21 17:39:12
Subject: Re: Searching for the cause of a bad plan

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group