Re: Optimizer use of index slows down query by factor

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Ruf <mrf(at)inxmail(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Optimizer use of index slows down query by factor
Date: 2009-12-24 15:46:25
Message-ID: 381.1261669585@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Michael Ruf <mrf(at)inxmail(dot)de> writes:
> we experience some strange performance problems, we've already found a
> workaround for us, but are curious if it's a known problem of the optimizer.

I think you need to see about getting this rowcount estimate to be more
accurate:

> -> Index Scan using idx_link_1 on link
> (cost=0.00..680.51 rows=13477 width=26) (actual time=5.707..12.043
> rows=126 loops=1)
> Index Cond: (task_id = 1556)
> Filter: (((deletable IS NULL) OR (NOT
> deletable)) AND ((link_type = 8) OR (link_type = 9)))

If it realized there'd be only 126 rows out of that scan, it'd probably
have gone for a nestloop join against the big table, which I think would
be noticeably faster than either of the plans you show here.

You already did crank up default_statistics_target, so I'm not sure if
raising it further would help any. What I'd suggest is trying to avoid
using non-independent AND/OR conditions. For instance recasting the
first OR as just "deletable is not true" would probably result in a
better estimate. The size of the error seems to be more than that would
account for though, so I suspect that the deletable and link_type
conditions are interdependent. Is it practical to recast your data
representation to avoid that?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Shrirang Chitnis 2009-12-24 15:46:49 Re: Performance with partitions/inheritance and multiple tables
Previous Message Gaël Le Mignot 2009-12-24 15:44:14 Re: SATA drives performance