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

Re: BUG #3826: Very Slow Execution of examplequery (wrong plan?)

From: "Alexander Steffens" <steffens(at)math(dot)uni-bonn(dot)de>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #3826: Very Slow Execution of examplequery (wrong plan?)
Date: 2007-12-19 09:57:53
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-bugs
So sorry, I send you only the half of information:
MS-SQL uses the the plan with only nested loops when i have abt less
than 100 tuples in both the tables (="small")

when t1 gets abt > 1000 tuples (="medium") it switches to the
hash-anti-semi-join, when both tables gets more than 1000 tuples
(="big") it too adds parallelism. (on my 2cpu machine).

from the file i attached in the last mail in the big-plan-xml-file I
extraxced this plan by cutting of what i thought is too much detail:

      <Sort Distinct="true">
          <Parallelism PartitioningType="Hash">
                          <Parallelism PartitioningType="Hash">
                          <Parallelism PartitioningType="Hash">
                                  <NestedLoops Optimized="false">

It is the third one Gregory had get from the image (that had a cutoff
on the top because of my resolution)

If you look inside the xml (plan_bigdata.sqlplan) you can find
interesting details i think.

for me it's clear that the query is not nice. I used it to provoke the
optimizer only for studiing the possibilities of what can be optimized
how far.

from my POV it's not clear why PostgreSQL runs into the triple-table
nested-loop which will lead to a cardinality of abt 8*10^9 where it
could make the t1,t2-nested loop with cardinality 5*10^6 and then a
merge-anti-semi-join on t1 (#1300) which should be able to do in about
log(5*10^6)*5*10^6. so there is a gap of nearly factor 1000.

for me it looks like it can not rotate the calculation of the
expression (2*(a1+a2)) outside of the "not exists"?

best regards, alexander.

PS: I will now let the query run to an end if it takes less than 10 hours

2007/12/19, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> It's possible that MS-SQL is doing something analogous to the
> >> hashed-subplan approach (hopefully with suitable tweaking for the NULL
> >> case) but even then it's hard to see how it could take only 9 sec.
> >> The cartesian product is too big.
> > Fwiw it seems MS-SQL is doing something funny. The three plans posted in the
> > screenshots for the "small", "mediu", and "large" cases are:
> > ...
> > Postgres is doing something equivalent to the first plan.
> Hmm.  I think the second plan is probably equivalent to the
> hashed-subplan behavior that you can get in PG by rewriting the query to
> NOT IN as I illustrated.  The third plan looks to be the same thing plus
> some parallelization frammishes.
> I'm not clear on what "small/medium/large" means, in particular not on
> which of these corresponds to the OP's report of 9-second execution.
>                         regards, tom lane

Alexander Steffens
Georgstr. 3
53111 Bonn
+49 228 2661615

In response to


pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Dave PageDate: 2007-12-19 10:03:41
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #3829: Wrong index reporting from pgAdmin III (v1.8.0 rev 6766-6767)
Previous:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2007-12-19 09:29:33
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #3829: Wrong index reporting from pgAdmin III (v1.8.0 rev 6766-6767)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group