Yes. This is from a 8.0.3 (with slightly older and different data,
resulting in only 9 rows, but the rest is the same):
Index Scan using ben_uk3 on foo1 ben (cost=0.00..73867.23 rows=863
width=27) (actual time=38.591..501.839 rows=9 loops=1) Filter: (subplan) SubPlan -> Hash Join (cost=14.25..42.53
rows=1width=0) (actual
time=0.284..0.284 rows=0 loops=1725) Hash Cond: ("outer".id = "inner".str_id) -> Index Scan using
str_uk4on structure str
(cost=0.00..27.91 rows=13 width=4) (actual time=0.765..4.043 rows=1
loops=112) Index Cond: (path ~ '*.2330676.*'::lquery) -> Hash (cost=14.23..14.23 rows=10
width=4)(actual
time=0.012..0.012 rows=0 loops=1725) -> Index Scan using foo2_ben_id_key1 on foo2 bz
(cost=0.00..14.23 rows=10 width=4) (actual time=0.008..0.009 rows=1
loops=1725) Index Cond: (ben_id = $0)Total runtime: 501.980 ms
Best regards
P.s. sorry for the stupid quoting, I've to use Outlook....
Mario Weilguni <mweilguni@sime.com> writes:
> The failing case is:
> ...
> SubPlan
> -> Hash Join (cost=8.47..19.46 rows=1 width=0) (actual
time=0.004..0.004 rows=0 loops=21619)
> Hash Cond: ("outer".id = "inner".str_id)
> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on structure str (cost=2.02..12.92
rows=6 width=4) (actual time=0.100..30.095 rows=1 loops=1)
> Recheck Cond: (path ~
'142.2330445.2330598.2330676.*'::lquery)
> -> Bitmap Index Scan on str_uk4 (cost=0.00..2.02
rows=6 width=0) (actual time=0.090..0.090 rows=1 loops=1)
> Index Cond: (path ~
'142.2330445.2330598.2330676.*'::lquery)
> -> Hash (cost=6.43..6.43 rows=5 width=4) (actual
time=0.032..0.032 rows=0 loops=1)
> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on foo2 bz (cost=2.02..6.43
rows=5 width=4) (actual time=0.025..0.025 rows=0 loops=1)
> Recheck Cond: (bid = $0)
> -> Bitmap Index Scan on foo2_bid_key1
(cost=0.00..2.02 rows=5 width=0) (actual time=0.021..0.021 rows=0
loops=1)
> Index Cond: (bid = $0)
Hmm, I wonder why the hash join's input nodes are showing "loops=1" ...
the hash depends on the subplan parameter $0 so it needs to be
re-evaluated each time through. It looks like that's not happening.
>Do you have the corresponding results from 8.0 --- if so, what do
>the loop counts look like?
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to
majordomo@postgresql.orgso that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
