Joins and full index scans...mysql vs postgres? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From ryan groth
Subject Joins and full index scans...mysql vs postgres?
Date
Msg-id E1FBxlH-0003Kt-9V@zeus.liquidweb.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Joins and full index scans...mysql vs postgres?  ("Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>)
Re: Joins and full index scans...mysql vs postgres?  (Chris <dmagick@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
I am issing a query like this:
SELECT *
   FROM users users
   LEFT JOIN phorum_users_base ON users.uid = phorum_users_base.user_id
   LEFT JOIN useraux ON useraux.uid = users.uid;

The joins are all on the PKs of the tables. It takes 1000ms to run on
postgres. The identical mysql version runs in 230ms. The problem seems
to stem from postgres's insistence to do three complete table scans,
where mysql does one and joins 1:1 against the results of the first. I
have switched the joins to inner joins and the difference is negligible.
Here are the explains on both postgres and mysql. Is there a way to
optimize this basic query for postgres that I am missing?

Postgres Explain

Merge Left Join  (cost=0.00..2656.36 rows=6528 width=1522)
Merge Cond: ("outer".uid = "inner".uid)
  ->  Merge Left Join  (cost=0.00..1693.09 rows=6528 width=1264)
        Merge Cond: ("outer".uid = "inner".user_id)
        ->  Index Scan using users_pkey on users  (cost=0.00..763.81
rows=6528 width=100)
        ->  Index Scan using phorum_users_base_pkey on phorum_users_base
 (cost=0.00..822.92 rows=9902 width=1168)
  ->  Index Scan using useraux_pkey on useraux  (cost=0.00..846.40
rows=7582 width=262)


MySQL Explain:

id,select_type,table,possible_keys,key,key_len,ref,rows,extra
1, 'PRIMARY', 'USERS', 'ALL', '', '', '', '', 6528, ''
1, 'PRIMARY', 'phorum_users_base', 'eq_ref', 'PRIMARY', 'PRIMARY', '4',
'wh2o.USERS.UID', 1, ''
1, 'PRIMARY', 'useraux', 'eq_ref', 'PRIMARY', 'PRIMARY', '4',
'wh2o.USERS.UID', 1, ''


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Theodore LoScalzo
Date:
Subject: Re: --pls reply ASAP
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Good News re count(*) in 8.1