On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> wrote:
> Here are two more unexpected results. Same test table (1 mil. records,
> "id" is SERIAL PRIMARY KEY, PostgreSQL 9.1, VACUUM ANALYZE performed
> before the experiments):
>
> ivoras=# explain analyze select * from lt where id > 900000 limit 10;
> QUERY PLAN
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Limit (cost=0.00..1.71 rows=10 width=9) (actual
> time=142.669..142.680 rows=10 loops=1)
> -> Seq Scan on lt (cost=0.00..17402.00 rows=101630 width=9)
> (actual time=142.665..142.672 rows=10 loops=1)
> Filter: (id > 900000)
> Total runtime: 142.735 ms
> (4 rows)
[skipped]
> ivoras=# set enable_seqscan to off;
> SET
> ivoras=# explain analyze select * from lt where id > 900000 limit 10;
> QUERY PLAN
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Limit (cost=0.00..1.74 rows=10 width=9) (actual time=0.081..0.112
> rows=10 loops=1)
> -> Index Scan using lt_pkey on lt (cost=0.00..17644.17
> rows=101630 width=9) (actual time=0.078..0.100 rows=10 loops=1)
> Index Cond: (id > 900000)
> Total runtime: 0.175 ms
> (4 rows)
>
> It looks like the problem is in the difference between what the
> planner expects and what the Filter or Index operations deliver:
> (cost=0.00..17402.00 rows=101630 width=9) (actual
> time=142.665..142.672 rows=10 loops=1).
This might be caused by not accurate random_page_cost setting. This
parameter gives planner a hint of how much it would cost to perform a
random page read used by index scans. It looks like you need to
decrease random_page_cost.
--
Kind regards,
Sergey Konoplev
PostgreSQL Consultant and DBA
Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/grayhemp
Phone: USA +1 (415) 867-9984, Russia +7 (901) 903-0499, +7 (988) 888-1979
Skype: gray-hemp
Jabber: gray.ru@gmail.com
