Thread: plan difference between set-returning function with ROWS within IN() and a plain join
plan difference between set-returning function with ROWS within IN() and a plain join
From
Frank van Vugt
Date:
L.S.
I'm noticing a difference in planning between a join and an in() clause,
before trying to create an independent test-case, I'd like to know if there's
an obvious reason why this would be happening:
=> the relatively simple PLPGSQL si_credit_tree() function has 'ROWS 5' in
it's definition
df=# select version();
version
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PostgreSQL 8.3.1 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC) 4.1.2
(1 row)
db=# explain analyse
select sum(si.base_total_val)
from sales_invoice si, si_credit_tree(80500007) foo(id)
where si.id = foo.id;
QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregate (cost=42.73..42.74 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.458..0.459
rows=1 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..42.71 rows=5 width=8) (actual
time=0.361..0.429 rows=5 loops=1)
-> Function Scan on si_credit_tree foo (cost=0.00..1.30 rows=5
width=4) (actual time=0.339..0.347 rows=5 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using sales_invoice_pkey on sales_invoice si
(cost=0.00..8.27 rows=1 width=12) (actual time=0.006..0.008 rows=1 loops=5)
Index Cond: (si.id = foo.id)
Total runtime: 0.562 ms
db=# explain analyse
select sum(base_total_val)
from sales_invoice
where id in (select id from si_credit_tree(80500007));
QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregate (cost=15338.31..15338.32 rows=1 width=8) (actual
time=3349.401..3349.402 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on sales_invoice (cost=0.00..15311.19 rows=10846 width=8)
(actual time=0.781..3279.046 rows=21703 loops=1)
Filter: (subplan)
SubPlan
-> Function Scan on si_credit_tree (cost=0.00..1.30 rows=5
width=0) (actual time=0.146..0.146 rows=1 loops=21703)
Total runtime: 3349.501 ms
I'd hoped the planner would use the ROWS=5 knowledge a bit better:
db=# explain analyse
select sum(base_total_val)
from sales_invoice
where id in (80500007,80500008,80500009,80500010,80500011);
QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregate (cost=40.21..40.22 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.105..0.106
rows=1 loops=1)
-> Bitmap Heap Scan on sales_invoice (cost=21.29..40.19 rows=5 width=8)
(actual time=0.061..0.070 rows=5 loops=1)
Recheck Cond: (id = ANY
('{80500007,80500008,80500009,80500010,80500011}'::integer[]))
-> Bitmap Index Scan on sales_invoice_pkey (cost=0.00..21.29 rows=5
width=0) (actual time=0.049..0.049 rows=5 loops=1)
Index Cond: (id = ANY
('{80500007,80500008,80500009,80500010,80500011}'::integer[]))
Total runtime: 0.201 ms
--
Best,
Frank.
Re: plan difference between set-returning function with ROWS within IN() and a plain join
From
PFC
Date:
On Tue, 06 May 2008 10:21:43 +0200, Frank van Vugt <ftm.van.vugt@foxi.nl> wrote: > L.S. > > I'm noticing a difference in planning between a join and an in() clause, > before trying to create an independent test-case, I'd like to know if > there's > an obvious reason why this would be happening: Is the function STABLE ?
Re: plan difference between set-returning function with ROWS within IN() and a plain join
From
Frank van Vugt
Date:
> > I'm noticing a difference in planning between a join and an in() clause, > > before trying to create an independent test-case, I'd like to know if > > there's > > an obvious reason why this would be happening: > > Is the function STABLE ? Yep. For the record, even changing it to immutable doesn't make a difference in performance here. -- Best, Frank.
Re: plan difference between set-returning function with ROWS within IN() and a plain join
From
Tom Lane
Date:
Frank van Vugt <ftm.van.vugt@foxi.nl> writes:
> db=# explain analyse
> select sum(base_total_val)
> from sales_invoice
> where id in (select id from si_credit_tree(80500007));
Did you check whether this query even gives the right answer? The
EXPLAIN output shows that 21703 rows of sales_invoice are being
selected, which is a whole lot different than the other behavior.
I think you forgot the alias foo(id) in the subselect and it's
actually reducing to "where id in (id)", ie, TRUE.
regards, tom lane
Re: plan difference between set-returning function with ROWS within IN() and a plain join
From
Frank van Vugt
Date:
> > db=# explain analyse
> > select sum(base_total_val)
> > from sales_invoice
> > where id in (select id from si_credit_tree(80500007));
>
> Did you check whether this query even gives the right answer?
You knew the right answer to that already ;)
> I think you forgot the alias foo(id) in the subselect and it's
> actually reducing to "where id in (id)", ie, TRUE.
Tricky, but completely obvious once pointed out, that's _exactly_ what was
happening.
db=# explain analyse
select sum(base_total_val)
from sales_invoice
where id in (select id from si_credit_tree(80500007) foo(id));
QUERY
PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregate (cost=42.79..42.80 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.440..0.441
rows=1 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=1.31..42.77 rows=5 width=8) (actual
time=0.346..0.413 rows=5 loops=1)
-> HashAggregate (cost=1.31..1.36 rows=5 width=4) (actual
time=0.327..0.335 rows=5 loops=1)
-> Function Scan on si_credit_tree foo (cost=0.00..1.30
rows=5 width=4) (actual time=0.300..0.306 rows=5 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using sales_invoice_pkey on sales_invoice
(cost=0.00..8.27 rows=1 width=12) (actual time=0.006..0.008 rows=1 loops=5)
Index Cond: (sales_invoice.id = foo.id)
Total runtime: 0.559 ms
Thanks for the replies!
--
Best,
Frank.
Re: plan difference between set-returning function with ROWS within IN() and a plain join
From
"Merlin Moncure"
Date:
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Frank van Vugt <ftm.van.vugt@foxi.nl> wrote: >> > db=# explain analyse >> > select sum(base_total_val) >> > from sales_invoice >> > where id in (select id from si_credit_tree(80500007)); >> >> Did you check whether this query even gives the right answer? > > You knew the right answer to that already ;) > >> I think you forgot the alias foo(id) in the subselect and it's >> actually reducing to "where id in (id)", ie, TRUE. > > Tricky, but completely obvious once pointed out, that's _exactly_ what was > happening. This is one of the reasons why, for a table named 'foo', I name the columns 'foo_id', not 'id'. Also, if you prefix the id column with the table name, you can usually use JOIN USING which is a little bit tighter and easier than JOIN ON. merlin