Re: Index filter instead of index condition w/ IN / ANY queries above certain set size - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Laurenz Albe
Subject Re: Index filter instead of index condition w/ IN / ANY queries above certain set size
Date
Msg-id 73d1582fec0ef31e1f2e072e979a875cc851eff6.camel@cybertec.at
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Index filter instead of index condition w/ IN / ANY queries above certain set size  (Danny Shemesh <dany74q@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
On Wed, 2022-11-23 at 15:38 +0200, Danny Shemesh wrote:
> ->  Limit  (cost=0.56..24.17 rows=1 width=16) (actual time=2657.167..2657.167 rows=1 loops=39)
>       Buffers: shared hit=323452 read=887661
>       I/O Timings: read=2369932.536
>       ->  Index Only Scan using idx_hashes on refs refs_1  (cost=0.56..265306.68 rows=11238 width=16) (actual
time=2657.162..2657.162rows=1 loops=39)
 
>             Index Cond: ((tid = '13371337-1337-1337-1337-133713371337'::uuid) AND (pidh > cte_1.pidh))
>             Filter: (tidh = ANY ('{13391339-1339-1339-1339-133913391339}'::uuid[]))    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<- Note this
line
>             Rows Removed by Filter: 346024
>             Heap Fetches: 1506359
>             Buffers: shared hit=323452 read=887661
>             I/O Timings: read=2369932.536

PostgreSQL thinks that there are enough such rows that it is cheaper to use the index
that supports the ORDER BY.  I don't know why there is a difference between = ANY
and = here, but you can use an expression like "ORDER BY pidh + 0" to avoid that.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Danny Shemesh
Date:
Subject: Re: Index filter instead of index condition w/ IN / ANY queries above certain set size
Next
From: Laurenz Albe
Date:
Subject: Re: Getting PSQL in Windows to support TAB/Autocomplete via modified readline...