Re: Adding LIMIT changes PostgreSQL plan from good to a bad one - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: Adding LIMIT changes PostgreSQL plan from good to a bad one
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRC2iP5qhxbDpA7c1RfksQPRHwXoxk96+=k=P1KKF7EDAw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Adding LIMIT changes PostgreSQL plan from good to a bad one  (Michael Korbakov <rmihael@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Adding LIMIT changes PostgreSQL plan from good to a bad one  (Michael Korbakov <rmihael@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general


čt 21. 11. 2019 v 17:19 odesílatel Michael Korbakov <rmihael@gmail.com> napsal:
Hi everybody.

I stumbled upon a weird problem with the query planner. I have a query
on a typical EAV schema:

SELECT contacts.id
FROM contacts
    LEFT OUTER JOIN (SELECT DISTINCT contacts_values.company_id AS
company_id, contacts_values.id AS id
                     FROM contacts_values
                     WHERE contacts_values.field_id =
'\x000000000000000000000000'
                       AND contacts_values.field_name = 'facebook'
                       AND
nimble_contact_value_normalize(nimble_skip_long_values(contacts_values.value))
=

nimble_contact_value_normalize('http://www.facebook.com/jon.ferrara'))
AS anon_1
                    ON anon_1.company_id = contacts.company_id AND
anon_1.id = contacts.id
    LEFT OUTER JOIN (SELECT DISTINCT contacts_values.company_id AS
company_id, contacts_values.id AS id
                     FROM contacts_values
                     WHERE contacts_values.field_id =
'\x000000000000000000000000'
                       AND contacts_values.field_name = 'last_name'
                       AND
nimble_contact_value_normalize(nimble_skip_long_values(contacts_values.value))
=
                           nimble_contact_value_normalize('Ferrara')) AS anon_2
                    ON anon_2.company_id = contacts.company_id AND
anon_2.id = contacts.id
    JOIN contacts__aggregated AS contacts__aggregated_1
         ON contacts__aggregated_1.company_id = contacts.company_id AND
            contacts__aggregated_1.contact_id = contacts.id AND
contacts__aggregated_1.field_name = 'names'
WHERE contacts.company_id = '\x4c2118ad54397f271b000000'
  AND (anon_1.id IS NOT NULL OR anon_2.id IS NOT NULL)
ORDER BY contacts__aggregated_1.value ASC
LIMIT 30 OFFSET 0;

My problem is that the LIMIT clause in this query makes the planner
choose a bad plan
with nested loops: https://explain.depesz.com/s/Mute. Running the same
query after
SET ENABLE_NESTLOOP TO OFF I am getting a much more efficient plan:
https://explain.depesz.com/s/b5kn. Removing the LIMIT from the query
results in a
similar plan: https://explain.depesz.com/s/wDqE.

One thing that concerns me is that the cost of the LIMIT node in the
bad nested loop
plan is just a fraction of the cost of its subnode. But for the better
merge join
plan LIMIT node has the same cost as its subnode. How could it be this
way? And what
can I do to make the planner pick up a better plan?

We are running PostgreSQL 10.10.

Sometimes are problems with LIMIT clause, because it too much decrease costs. The system expects so necessary values are found quickly - but if this premise is not valid, then this plan can be bad.

typical solution is wrapping to subquery and using OFFSET 0 (that is optimizer fence)

SELECT * FROM foo WHERE x = 10 LIMIT 10 -- should be transformed

SELECT * FROM (SELECT * FROM foo WHERE x = 10 OFFSET 0) s LIMIT 10;

But you can see in explain very bad estimations - left join is estimated to 918K rows and result is just 83 rows

There is relative very high rows removed in top part of query "Rows Removed by Filter: 1043891"

It's EAV table - it is unoptimized pattern :/

Pavel


Sincerely,

-- Michael Korbakov


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Israel Brewster
Date:
Subject: Re: Tablespace setup issue
Next
From: "Jason L. Amerson"
Date:
Subject: RE: Remote Connection Help