Re: Unexpected planner choice in simple JOIN - Mailing list pgsql-performance

Good suggestion. The results are...interesting:

test0=# SET min_parallel_index_scan_size =0;
SET
Time: 0.172 ms
test0=# EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT t0.id0, t1.val FROM tab0 AS t0 JOIN tab1 
AS t1 ON (t0.id0 = t1.id0) WHERE t0.id0 < 5;
    QUERY PLAN

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Gather  (cost=1097.91..40206.84 rows=5000 width=98) (actual 
time=0.362..5.565 rows=3500.00 loops=1)
    Workers Planned: 1
    Workers Launched: 1
    Buffers: shared hit=114
    ->  Nested Loop  (cost=97.91..38706.84 rows=2941 width=98) (actual 
time=0.034..0.479 rows=1750.00 loops=2)
          Buffers: shared hit=114
          ->  Parallel Index Only Scan using tab0_pkey on tab0 t0  
(cost=0.29..4.36 rows=3 width=4) (actual time=0.008..0.009 rows=2.50 
loops=2)
                Index Cond: (id0 < 5)
                Heap Fetches: 0
                Index Searches: 1
                Buffers: shared hit=3
          ->  Bitmap Heap Scan on tab1 t1 (cost=97.61..12867.78 
rows=3305 width=98) (actual time=0.036..0.140 rows=700.00 loops=5)
                Recheck Cond: (t0.id0 = id0)
                Heap Blocks: exact=97
                Buffers: shared hit=111
                ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tab1_id0_hash (cost=0.00..96.79 
rows=3305 width=0) (actual time=0.030..0.030 rows=700.00 loops=5)
                      Index Cond: (id0 = t0.id0)
                      Index Searches: 5
                      Buffers: shared hit=14
  Planning:
    Buffers: shared hit=222
  Planning Time: 0.763 ms
  Execution Time: 5.716 ms
(23 rows)

Time: 7.248 ms
test0=# SET max_parallel_workers_per_gather=0;
SET
Time: 0.131 ms
test0=# EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT t0.id0, t1.val FROM tab0 AS t0 JOIN tab1 
AS t1 ON (t0.id0 = t1.id0) WHERE t0.id0 < 5;
  QUERY PLAN

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Nested Loop  (cost=97.91..64508.51 rows=5000 width=98) (actual 
time=0.044..0.903 rows=3500.00 loops=1)
    Buffers: shared hit=113
    ->  Index Only Scan using tab0_pkey on tab0 t0 (cost=0.29..4.38 
rows=5 width=4) (actual time=0.003..0.005 rows=5.00 loops=1)
          Index Cond: (id0 < 5)
          Heap Fetches: 0
          Index Searches: 1
          Buffers: shared hit=3
    ->  Bitmap Heap Scan on tab1 t1  (cost=97.61..12867.78 rows=3305 
width=98) (actual time=0.028..0.132 rows=700.00 loops=5)
          Recheck Cond: (t0.id0 = id0)
          Heap Blocks: exact=97
          Buffers: shared hit=110
          ->  Bitmap Index Scan on tab1_id0_hash (cost=0.00..96.79 
rows=3305 width=0) (actual time=0.021..0.021 rows=700.00 loops=5)
                Index Cond: (id0 = t0.id0)
                Index Searches: 5
                Buffers: shared hit=13
  Planning:
    Buffers: shared hit=9
  Planning Time: 0.190 ms
  Execution Time: 1.025 ms
(19 rows)

Time: 1.459 ms

However disabling gather workers gets a much better plan. Now I can 
switch the child index to btree if you think that is significant. Best 
wishes

Mark

On 08/01/2026 17:14, David Rowley wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 at 17:03, Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't think so - while the case I posted used a hash index on the
>> child table, exactly the sane behaviour happens if it is a btree (I
>> probably should have mentioned that sorry). Background is I discovered
>> this while playing about with hash indexes...which I must say - someone
>> has done excellent work on as in this *particular cases* they are
>> getting me better query performance!
> Ok, it seems related to the min_parallel_index_scan_size GUC. If you
> zero that, do you get a better plan?
>
> I think the problem is that because the best form of plan for joining
> this tiny set of rows to the huge table is a parameterised nested
> loop, to parallelise that loop, you need a Parallel node on the outer
> side of the Nested Loop. If the index's size is below
> min_parallel_index_scan_size then we won't build a partial path for
> it.
>
> David