Re: Planner choosing NestedLoop, although it is slower...

From: Mario Splivalo <mario(dot)splivalo(at)megafon(dot)hr>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Planner choosing NestedLoop, although it is slower...
Date: 2011-07-13 00:53:32
Message-ID: 4E1CEC8C.3000508@megafon.hr
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On 07/13/2011 12:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mario Splivalo<mario(dot)splivalo(at)megafon(dot)hr> writes:
>> On 07/12/2011 10:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> What you need to look into is why the estimated join size is 9400 rows
>>> when the actual join size is zero. Are both tables ANALYZEd? Are you
>>> intentionally selecting rows that have no join partners?
>
>> Yes, both tables have been ANALYZEd. What do you mean, intentilnaly
>> selecting rows taht have no join partners?
>
> I'm wondering why the actual join size is zero. That seems like a
> rather unexpected case for a query like this.

Yes, seems that planer gets confused by LIMIT. This query:

select * from tubesite_object join tubesite_image on id=object_ptr_id
where site_id = 8 and pub_date < '2011-07-12 13:25:00' order by pub_date
desc ;

Does not choose Nested Loop, and is done instantly (20 ms), and returns
no rows. However, if I add LIMIT at the end, it chooses NestedLoop and
it takes 500ms if I'm alone on the server, and 10+ seconds if there 50+
connections on the server.

Mario

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-07-13 01:16:37 Re: UPDATEDs slowing SELECTs in a fully cached database
Previous Message Jeff Janes 2011-07-13 00:35:54 Re: UPDATEDs slowing SELECTs in a fully cached database