Re: sub select performance due to seq scans - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From H Hale
Subject Re: sub select performance due to seq scans
Date
Msg-id 20060731160902.37302.qmail@web88007.mail.re2.yahoo.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: sub select performance due to seq scans  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: sub select performance due to seq scans
List pgsql-performance
Tom,

It is unique.

Indexes:
    "flatomfilesysentry_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (objectid)
    "capsa_flatomfilesysentry_name_idx" btree (name)
Foreign-key constraints:
    "objectid" FOREIGN KEY (objectid) REFERENCES capsa_sys.master(objectid) ON DELETE CASCADE


Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
H Hale writes:
> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on flatomfilesysentry (cost=2.00..274.38 rows=3238 width=30) (actual time=0.011..0.013 rows=1 loops=6473)
> Recheck Cond: (flatomfilesysentry.objectid = "outer".dstobj)
> -> Bitmap Index Scan on flatomfilesysentry_pkey (cost=0.00..2.00 rows=3238 width=0) (actual time=0.007..0.007 rows=1 loops=6473)
> Index Cond: (flatomfilesysentry.objectid = "outer".dstobj)

Well, there's our estimation failure: 3238 rows expected, one row
actual.

What is the data distribution of flatomfilesysentry.objectid?
It looks from this example like it is unique or nearly so,
but the planner evidently does not think that.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Merlin Moncure"
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL scalability on Sun UltraSparc T1
Next
From: Axel Rau
Date:
Subject: Re: directory tree query with big planner variation