Re: Any better plan for this query?.. - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: Any better plan for this query?..
Date
Msg-id 1242730646.14551.159.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Any better plan for this query?..  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Any better plan for this query?..  (Matthew Wakeling <matthew@flymine.org>)
Re: Any better plan for this query?..  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-performance
On Mon, 2009-05-18 at 19:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> > In particular, running the tests repeatedly using
> >     H.REF_OBJECT = '0000000001'
> > rather than varying the value seems likely to benefit MySQL.

One thing to note in terms of optimisation of this query is that we
perform a top-level sort at the end of the query.

Both plans for this query show an IndexScan on a two column-index, with
an Index Condition of equality on the leading column. The ORDER BY
specifies a sort by the second index column, so the top-level Sort is
superfluous in this case.

My understanding is that we don't currently eliminate superfluous
additional sorts of this kind. Now I know that is a hard subject, but it
seems straightforward to consider interesting sort order equivalence
when we have constant equality constraints.

My guess would be that MySQL does do the sort removal, in latest
version.

Dimitri's EXPLAIN ANALYZEs show differing costs for that additional
step, but the around 10% of query time looks shaveable.

--
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Dimitri
Date:
Subject: Re: Any better plan for this query?..
Next
From: Matthew Wakeling
Date:
Subject: Re: Any better plan for this query?..