Re: Performance issue with 8.2.3 - "C" application

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Karl Denninger <karl(at)denninger(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance issue with 8.2.3 - "C" application
Date: 2007-07-25 02:45:58
Message-ID: 29633.1185331558@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Karl Denninger <karl(at)denninger(dot)net> writes:
> But.... here's the query that has a habit of taking the most time....

> select forum, * from post where toppost = 1 and (replied > (select
> lastview from forumlog where login='theuser' and forum=post.forum and
> number is null)) is not false AND (replied > (select lastview from
> forumlog where login='theuser' and forum=post.forum and
> number=post.number)) is not f
> alse order by pinned desc, replied desc offset 0 limit 20

Did that ever perform well for you? It's the sub-selects that are
likely to hurt ... in particular,

> -> Index Scan using post_top on post (cost=0.00..57266.37
> rows=113 width=757)
> Index Cond: (toppost = 1)
> Filter: (((replied > (subplan)) IS NOT FALSE) AND
> ((replied > (subplan)) IS NOT FALSE))

versus

> Index Scan using post_top on post (cost=0.00..632.03 rows=1013 width=11)
> Index Cond: (toppost = 1)

The planner thinks that the two subplan filter conditions will eliminate
about 90% of the rows returned by the bare indexscan (IIRC this is
purely a rule of thumb, not based on any statistics) and that testing
them 1013 times will add over 50000 cost units to the basic indexscan.
That part I believe --- correlated subqueries are expensive.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Karl Denninger 2007-07-25 02:55:45 Re: Performance issue with 8.2.3 - "C" application
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2007-07-25 01:28:00 Re: [PERFORM] 8.2 -> 8.3 performance numbers