[PostgreSQL 6.5.0 on i586-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc egcs-2.91.66]
table opset_steps
(name text, id int2, ver int2) [1400 rows]
non-unique index is on (id, ver)
table run_opsets
(status int2, id int2, ver int2, run_id int2, seq int2) [17000 rows]
pkey is (id, seq), second index on(status, id, ver, run_id)
select count(*) from run_opsets where status=1; --> 187
select count(*) from run_opsets where status=3; --> 10564
table runs
(run_name text, run_id int2, status int2) [900 rows]
pkey is run_name, second index(run_id, status)
select count(*)from runs where status=1; -->68
I have vacuum analyzed all relevant tables.
explain select os.name,r.run_name,ro.status from opset_steps os,runs r,run_opsets ro
where (ro.status=3 or ro.status=1) and ro.opset_id=os.opset_id and ro.run_id=r.run_id
and ro.opset_ver=os.opset_ver and r.status=1;
Hash Join (cost=1793.58 rows=14560 width=38)
-> Hash Join (cost=1266.98 rows=14086 width=24)
-> Seq Scan on run_opsets ro (cost=685.51 rows=13903 width=8)
-> Hash (cost=70.84 rows=1389 width=16)
-> Seq Scan on opset_steps os (cost=70.84 rows=1389 width=16)
-> Hash (cost=47.43 rows=374 width=14)
-> Seq Scan on runs r (cost=47.43 rows=374 width=14)
This query takes 16 seconds. [returns 3126 rows]
On Tue, Jul 20, 1999 at 05:42:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:56:46 -0400 George Young wrote:
> > ... Is this then
> > the best that postgres can do? Is there some rephrasing/restructuring of
> > this query that would make it faster?
>
> Hard to say. The query looks reasonable as it stands ---
> ... You have no restriction
> clause on opset_steps so all of those entries get loaded for hashing;
> can you provide one?
No.
> The system's plan looks pretty reasonable as well. It might be that
> a merge join would be faster than a hash join but I wouldn't assume
> so. If you want, you can try forcing the system not to use hashes;
> start psql with environment variable
> PGOPTIONS="-fh"
> and see what sort of plan and execution time you get. If that does
> turn out to be a big win it would indicate that the planner is using
> poor cost estimates, which is certainly possible...
Yes! PGOPTIONS="-fh" made the query time go from 16 seconds to 2 seconds!
Is this a safe thing to leave on permanently, or is there some way to set
PGOPTIONS for just this query?
explain select os.name,r.run_name,ro.status from opset_steps os,runs r,run_opsets ro
where (ro.status=3 or ro.status=1) and ro.opset_id=os.opset_id and ro.run_id=r.run_id
and ro.opset_ver=os.opset_ver and r.status=1;
Merge Join (cost=9295.54 rows=14560 width=38)
-> Seq Scan (cost=8676.01 rows=14371 width=22)
-> Sort (cost=8676.01 rows=14371 width=22)
-> Merge Join (cost=1657.30 rows=14371 width=22)
-> Index Scan using run_opsets_pkey on run_opsets ro
(cost=1031.25 rows=13903 width=8)
-> Seq Scan (cost=154.91 rows=374 width=14)
-> Sort (cost=154.91 rows=374 width=14)
-> Seq Scan on runs r (cost=47.43 rows=374 width=14)
-> Index Scan using opset_steps_idx_ver_id on opset_steps os (cost=99.45 rows=1389
width=16)
With PGOPTIONS=-fh, this query takes ~ 2 seconds! [returns 3126 rows]
--
George Young, Rm. L-204 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
244 Wood St.
Lexington, Massachusetts 02420-9108 (781) 981-2756
