Thank you for your help, Tom.
You are right. I added an index on employee.name (by making it unique), and
then postgres can visit employee table in a pre-sorted manner, and can exit
early without joining more rows.
Just sharing the tweak I did to the example, if anyone else is interested
in a quick test. I also populated 1 million rows so the example is no
longer a toy demo.
```sql
drop table if exists department;
drop table if exists employee;
create table department(
id int primary key,
name text);
create table employee(
id int primary key,
name text unique,
department_id int);
INSERT INTO department (id, name)
SELECT i+1, 'department' || i+1
FROM generate_series(0, 9) AS i;
INSERT INTO employee (id, name, department_id)
SELECT i+1, 'name' || i+1, i % 10 +1
FROM generate_series(0, 999999) AS i;
analyze department;
analyze employee;
explain analyze
select *
from employee left outer join department
on employee.department_id = department.id
order by employee.name limit 10;
```
And here is the plan:
```
QUERY
PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit (cost=0.57..1.36 rows=10 width=34) (actual time=0.017..0.030
rows=10 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop Left Join (cost=0.57..78630.06 rows=1000000 width=34)
(actual time=0.016..0.028 rows=10 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using employee_name_key on employee
(cost=0.42..54855.68 rows=1000000 width=18) (actual time=0.008..0.015
rows=10 loops=1)
-> Memoize (cost=0.15..0.16 rows=1 width=16) (actual
time=0.001..0.001 rows=1 loops=10)
Cache Key: employee.department_id
Cache Mode: logical
Hits: 6 Misses: 4 Evictions: 0 Overflows: 0 Memory
Usage: 1kB
-> Index Scan using department_pkey on department
(cost=0.14..0.15 rows=1 width=16) (actual time=0.001..0.001 rows=1 loops=4)
Index Cond: (id = employee.department_id)
Planning Time: 0.189 ms
Execution Time: 0.045 ms
(11 rows)
```
Personally I still wish someday postgres can push down `limit` node
together with `sort` node when certain conditions are met, so that there's
no need to add an index :D
Thank you again for your help!
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 at 18:01, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> WU Yan <4wu...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Hello everyone, I am still learning postgres planner and performance
> > optimization, so please kindly point out if I missed something obvious.
>
> An index on employee.name would likely help here. Even if we had
> an optimization for pushing LIMIT down through a join (which you
> are right, we don't) it could not push the LIMIT through a sort step.
> So you need presorted output from the scan of "employee". I think
> this example would behave better with that. You may also need to
> test with non-toy amounts of data to get the plan you think is
> better: an example with only half a dozen rows is going to be
> swamped by startup costs.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
