Re: Need help with one query

Richard Huxton wrote:

>Anne Rosset wrote:
>
>
>>EXPLAIN ANALYZE
>>SELECT
>>  audit_change.id             AS id,
>>  audit_change.audit_entry_id AS auditEntryId,
>>  audit_entry.object_id       AS objectId,
>>  audit_change.property_name  AS propertyName,
>>  audit_change.property_type  AS propertyType,
>>  audit_change.old_value      AS oldValue,
>>  audit_change.new_value      AS newValue,
>>  audit_change.flexfield      AS flexField
>>FROM
>>  audit_entry audit_entry, audit_change audit_change
>>WHERE
>>  audit_change.audit_entry_id = audit_entry.id
>>  AND audit_entry.object_id = 'artf414029';
>>
>>
>[query reformatted to make it more readable]
>
>Not quite clear why you are aliasing the tables to their own names...
>
>
>

>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Hash Join  (cost=8.79..253664.55 rows=4 width=136) (actual
>>time=4612.674..6683.158 rows=4 loops=1)
>>  Hash Cond: ((audit_change.audit_entry_id)::text = (audit_entry.id)::text)
>>  ->  Seq Scan on audit_change  (cost=0.00..225212.52 rows=7584852
>>width=123) (actual time=0.009..2838.216 rows=7584852 loops=1)
>>  ->  Hash  (cost=8.75..8.75 rows=3 width=45) (actual time=0.049..0.049
>>rows=4 loops=1)
>>        ->  Index Scan using audit_entry_object on audit_entry
>>(cost=0.00..8.75 rows=3 width=45) (actual time=0.033..0.042 rows=4 loops=1)
>>              Index Cond: ((object_id)::text = 'artf414029'::text)
>>Total runtime: 6683.220 ms
>>
>>
>
>Very odd. It knows the table is large and that the seq-scan is going to
>be expensive.
>
>Try issuing "set enable_seqscan = off" and run the explain analyse
>again. That should show the cost of using the indexes.
>
>
>

With "set enable_seqscan = off":

QUERY PLAN

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nested Loop (cost=11.35..12497.53 rows=59 width=859) (actual
time=46.074..49.742 rows=7 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using audit_entry_pk on audit_entry (cost=0.00..7455.95
rows=55 width=164) (actual time=45.940..49.541 rows=2 loops=1)
Filter: ((object_id)::text = 'artf1024'::text)
-> Bitmap Heap Scan on audit_change (cost=11.35..90.93 rows=59
width=777) (actual time=0.086..0.088 rows=4 loops=2)
Recheck Cond: ((audit_change.audit_entry_id)::text = (audit_entry.id)::text)
-> Bitmap Index Scan on audit_change_entry (cost=0.00..11.33 rows=59
width=0) (actual time=0.076..0.076 rows=4 loops=2)
Index Cond: ((audit_change.audit_entry_id)::text = (audit_entry.id)::text)
Total runtime: 49.801 ms


The db version is 8.2.4

We are wondering if it is because of our audit_entry_id's format (like
'adte1DDFEA5B011C8988C3928752').  Any inputs?
Thanks,
Anne