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

Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...

From: Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql(at)jamponi(dot)net>
To: Mladen Gogala <mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "david(at)lang(dot)hm" <david(at)lang(dot)hm>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, Vitalii Tymchyshyn <tivv00(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...
Date: 2011-02-02 18:19:20
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-performance
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Mladen Gogala
<mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 It would be pretty hard to make autoanalyze work on
>> such tables
>> without removing some of the performance benefits of having such
>> tables in the first place - namely, the local buffer manager.  But you
>> could ANALYZE them by hand.
> Not necessarily autoanalyze, some default rules for the situations when
> stats is not there should be put in place,
> like the following:
> 1) If there is a usable index on the temp table - use it.
> 2) It there isn't a usable index on the temp table and there is a join, make
> the temp table the first table
>   in the nested loop join.
> People are complaining about the optimizer not using the indexes all over
> the place, there should be a way to
> make the optimizer explicitly prefer the indexes, like was the case with
> Oracle's venerable RBO (rules based
> optimizer). RBO didn't use statistics, it had a rank of access method and
> used the access method with the highest
> rank of all available access methods. In practice, it translated into: if an
> index exists - use it.

However, sometimes using an index results in a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE plan.
I recently encountered the issue myself, and plopping an ANALYZE
$tablename in there, since I was using a temporary table anyway, make
all the difference. The planner switched from an index-based query to
a sequential scan, and a sequential scan was (is) vastly more
efficient in this particular case.

Personally, I'd get rid of autovacuum/autoanalyze support on temporary
tables (they typically have short lives and are often accessed
immediately after creation preventing the auto* stuff from being
useful anyway), *AND* every time I ask I'm always told "make sure
ANALYZE the table before you use it".


In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-02-02 18:20:59
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...
Previous:From: Cesar ArrietaDate: 2011-02-02 18:15:22
Subject: Server Configuration

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Nicolas GrillyDate: 2011-02-02 18:20:15
Subject: Why "copy ... from stdio" does not return immediately when reading invalid data?
Previous:From: Aidan Van DykDate: 2011-02-02 18:14:35

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group