Re: Bad plan chosen for union all

From: Tom Lane
Subject: Re: Bad plan chosen for union all
Date: ,
Msg-id: 4237.1511930594@sss.pgh.pa.us
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: Bad plan chosen for union all  (Alex Reece)
Responses: Re: Bad plan chosen for union all  (Alex Reece)
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

Bad plan chosen for union all  (Alex Reece, )
 Re: Bad plan chosen for union all  (Alex Reece, )
  Re: Bad plan chosen for union all  (Tom Lane, )
   Re: Bad plan chosen for union all  (Alex Reece, )

Alex Reece <> writes:
> I managed to reduce my test case: the following query does not take
> advantage of the index on contribution metrics.

Yeah.  What you're wishing is that the planner would push a join
condition down into a subquery, but it won't do that at present.
Doing so would require generating "parameterized paths" for subqueries.
While I do not think there's any fundamental technical reason anymore
that we couldn't do so, there's considerable risk of wasting a lot of
planner cycles chasing unprofitable plan alternatives.  Anyway it was
totally impractical before 9.6's upper-planner-pathification changes,
and not all of the dust has settled from that rewrite.

> But I expected it to be equivalent to the plan from this query:

The difference here is that, from the perspective of the outer query,
the WHERE condition is a restriction clause on the "cim" relation,
not a join clause.  So it will get pushed down into the subquery
without creating any join order constraints on the outer query.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-performance by date:

From: Alex Reece
Date:
Subject: Re: Bad plan chosen for union all
From: Dinesh Chandra 12108
Date:
Subject: ODBC--call failed :: Bindings were not allocated properly