Pierre:
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Pierre Ducroquet
<pierre.ducroquet@people-doc.com> wrote:
> The query does a few joins «after» running a FTS query on a main table.
> The FTS query returns a few thousand rows, but the estimations are wrong,
> leading the optimizer to terrible plans compared to what should happen, and
> thus creates a far higher execution time.
....
> but the issue remain the same. The table contains about 295,000 documents, and
....
> Request | Estimated rows | Real rows
> ----------------------------------+----------------+-----------
> 'word1' | 38050 | 37500
> 'word1 word2' | 4680 | 32000
> 'word1 word2 word3' | 270 | 12300
> 'word1 word2 word3 word4' | 10 | 9930
> 'word1 word2 word3 word4 word5' | 1 | 9930
>
> You can see that with more words in query, the estimation falls far behind
> reality.
I'm not really familiar with FTS but, doing a few division of
estimations and rows it seems it estimates as uncorrelated words, and
you real rows clearly indicate some of them are clearly correlated (
like w1/w2 and w4/s5, and partially w3/w45 ) and very common.
> Is that a known limitation of the FTS indexing ? Am I missing something
> obvious, or a poor configuration ?
Someone more familiar with it needed for that, but what I've found
several times is FTS does not mix too well with relational queries at
the optimizer level ( as FTS terms can have very diverse degrees of
correlation, which is very difficult to store in the statistics a
relational optimizer normally uses ).
Francisco Olarte.
