Guido Niewerth <gniewerth@ocsgmbh.com> writes:
> And this is the execution plan. It looks like it does a slow sequential scan where it�s able to do an index scan:
> 2015-11-02 17:42:10 CET LOG: duration: 5195.673 ms plan:
> Query Text: SELECT NOT EXISTS( SELECT 1 FROM custom_data WHERE key = old.key LIMIT 1 )
> Result (cost=0.09..0.10 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=5195.667..5195.667 rows=1 loops=1)
> Output: (NOT $0)
> Buffers: shared hit=34 read=351750
> InitPlan 1 (returns $0)
> -> Limit (cost=0.00..0.09 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=5195.662..5195.662 rows=0 loops=1)
> Output: (1)
> Buffers: shared hit=34 read=351750
> -> Seq Scan on public.custom_data (cost=0.00..821325.76 rows=9390835 width=0) (actual
time=5195.658..5195.658rows=0 loops=1)
> Output: 1
> Filter: (custom_data.key = $15)
> Buffers: shared hit=34 read=351750
It looks like you're getting bit by an inaccurate estimate of what will be
the quickest way to satisfy a LIMIT query. In this particular situation,
I'd advise just dropping the LIMIT, as it contributes nothing useful.
(If memory serves, 9.5 will actually ignore constant-LIMIT clauses inside
EXISTS(), because people keep writing them even though they're useless.
Earlier releases do not have that code though.)
regards, tom lane
