Re: unstable query plan on pg 16,17,18

> On 23 Feb 2026, at 20:59, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2026-02-23 at 16:10 +0100, Attila Soki wrote:
>>> On 23 Feb 2026, at 10:41, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2026-02-23 at 10:37 +0100, Attila Soki wrote:
>>>> When upgrading from PostgreSQL 14.4, I noticed that one of my somewhat complex
>>>> analytical queries sometimes gets an inefficient plan under PostgreSQL 16, 17, and 18.
>>>> Under 14.4, the query runs with a stable plan and completes in 19 to 22 seconds.
>>>> In newer versions, the plan seems to be unstable, sometimes the query completes
>>>> in 17 to 20 seconds, sometimes it runs for 5 to 18 minutes with the inefficient plan.
>>>> This also happens even if the data is not significantly changed.
>>>
>>> This is very likely owing to a bad estimate.
>>>
>>> Could you turn on "track_io_timing" and send us the EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) output
>>> for both the good and the bad plan?
>>
>> Thank you for your reply. Here are the two explains.
>> In order to be able to publish the plans here, I have obfuscated the table and field names, but this is reversible, so I can provide more info if needed.
>>
>> plan-ok:
>> https://explain.depesz.com/s/hQvM
>>
>> plan-wrong:
>> https://explain.depesz.com/s/uLvl
>
> Thanks.
>
> The difference in the plans is under the "Subquery Scan on odg", starting with
> plan node 50 (everything under the "Sort"). I suspect that the mis-estimate
> that is at the root of the problem is here:
>
> -> Index Scan using table_k_late_spec_dp_end_dat_key on schema1.table_k kal (... rows=196053 ...) (... rows=471.00 ...)
> Index Cond: (kal.dp_end_dat < ('now'::cstring)::date)
> Index Searches: 1
> Buffers: shared hit=230 read=49
> I/O Timings: shared read=0.142
>
> PostgreSQL overestimates the row count by a factor of over 400.
> Try to fix that estimate and see if that gets PostgreSQL to do the right thing.
>
> Perhaps a simple ANALYZE on the table can do the trick.

In the examples I used table_k to flip the plan with
vacuumed -Upostgres -vZ -t schema1.tbl_used_in_query db1
in the explain output schema1.tbl_used_in_query is table_k

> The right side of the comparison looks awkward, as if you wrote 'now'::text::date
> My experiments show that PostgreSQL v18 estimates well even with such a weird
> condition, but perhaps if you write "current_date" instead, you'd get better results.

I didn't realize that made a difference. I will replace all occurrences. It also looks more clean with current_date.

>
> I'd play just with a query like
>
> EXPLAIN (ANALYZE)
> SELECT * FROM schema1.table_k AS kal
> WHERE dp_end_dat < current_date;
>
> until I get a good estimate.

I will try to set custom statistics for dp_end_dat and the fields used by the table_k_late_spec_dp_end_dat_key index.
Let’s see if that helps.

I am on UTC+1. I will try all of this tomorrow and get back to you with the results later.

Thank you

regards,
Attila