I get it now... project_id=115 has a frequency of 0.09241 in pg_stats.
So if ((project_id = 115) AND (project_id = 115)) is considered as two
independent conditions, the row estimate ends up being 0.09241 *
0.09241 * 1.20163e+07 (reltuples from pg_class) = 102614.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/row-estimation-examples.html
was a big help.
Matt
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Matt Daw <matt@shotgunsoftware.com> wrote:
> Quick follow up... I've found that the row estimate in:
>
> explain select count(id) from versions where project_id IN (80,115)
> AND project_id=115;
> QUERY PLAN
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Aggregate (cost=178572.75..178572.76 rows=1 width=4)
> -> Index Scan using dneg_versions_project_id on versions
> (cost=0.00..178306.94 rows=106323 width=4)
> Index Cond: ((project_id = ANY ('{80,115}'::integer[])) AND
> (project_id = 115))
>
>
> ... is the sum of two other estimates, seen when rewriting the query
> using OR instead of IN:
>
>
> explain select count(id) from versions where (project_id = 80 OR
> project_id = 115) AND project_id=115;
> QUERY PLAN
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Aggregate (cost=305896.95..305896.96 rows=1 width=4)
> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on versions (cost=2315.08..305632.00
> rows=105980 width=4)
> Recheck Cond: (((project_id = 80) AND (project_id = 115)) OR
> ((project_id = 115) AND (project_id = 115)))
> -> BitmapOr (cost=2315.08..2315.08 rows=106323 width=0)
> -> Bitmap Index Scan on dneg_versions_project_id
> (cost=0.00..94.52 rows=3709 width=0)
> Index Cond: ((project_id = 80) AND (project_id = 115))
> -> Bitmap Index Scan on dneg_versions_project_id
> (cost=0.00..2167.57 rows=102614 width=0)
> Index Cond: ((project_id = 115) AND (project_id = 115))
>
> 106323 = 3709 + 102614
>
> Looks like the underlying problem is that the estimate for
> ((project_id = 115) AND (project_id = 115)) doesn't end up being the
> same as (project_id=115) on its own.
>
> Matt
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Matt Daw <matt@shotgunsoftware.com> wrote:
>> Howdy, the query generator in my app sometimes creates redundant
>> filters of the form:
>>
>> project_id IN ( <list of projects user has permission to see> ) AND
>> project_id = <single project user is looking at >
>>
>> ... and this is leading to a bad estimate (and thus a bad plan) on a
>> few complex queries. I've included simplified examples below. This
>> server is running 9.0.10 and the statistics target has been updated to
>> 1000 on the project_id column. I've also loaded the one table into a
>> 9.2.2 instance and replicated the behaviour.
>>
>> I can change how the query is being generated, but I'm curious why I'm
>> getting a bad estimate. Is this an expected result?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> =============
>>
>> 1) Filter on project_id only, row estimate for Bitmap Index Scan quite good.
>>
>> explain (analyze,buffers) select count(id) from versions WHERE project_id=115;
>>
>> QUERY PLAN
>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Aggregate (cost=1218111.01..1218111.02 rows=1 width=4) (actual
>> time=1531.341..1531.342 rows=1 loops=1)
>> Buffers: shared hit=452619
>> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on versions (cost=34245.06..1215254.86
>> rows=1142461 width=4) (actual time=148.394..1453.383 rows=1114197
>> loops=1)
>> Recheck Cond: (project_id = 115)
>> Buffers: shared hit=452619
>> -> Bitmap Index Scan on versions_project_id
>> (cost=0.00..33959.45 rows=1142461 width=0) (actual
>> time=139.709..139.709 rows=1116037 loops=1)
>> Index Cond: (project_id = 115)
>> Buffers: shared hit=22077
>> Total runtime: 1531.399 ms
>>
>> 2) Filter on project_id IN () AND project_id. Row estimate is ~10x lower.
>>
>> explain (analyze,buffers) select count(id) from versions WHERE
>> project_id IN (80,115) AND project_id=115;;
>>
>> QUERY PLAN
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Aggregate (cost=327066.18..327066.19 rows=1 width=4) (actual
>> time=1637.889..1637.889 rows=1 loops=1)
>> Buffers: shared hit=458389
>> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on versions (cost=3546.56..326793.17
>> rows=109201 width=4) (actual time=155.107..1557.453 rows=1114180
>> loops=1)
>> Recheck Cond: ((project_id = ANY ('{80,115}'::integer[])) AND
>> (project_id = 115))
>> Buffers: shared hit=458389
>> -> Bitmap Index Scan on versions_project_id
>> (cost=0.00..3519.26 rows=109201 width=0) (actual time=145.502..145.502
>> rows=1125436 loops=1)
>> Index Cond: ((project_id = ANY ('{80,115}'::integer[]))
>> AND (project_id = 115))
>> Buffers: shared hit=22076
>> Total runtime: 1637.941 ms
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Matt Daw <matt@shotgunsoftware.com> wrote:
> Quick follow up... I've found that the row estimate in:
>
> explain select count(id) from versions where project_id IN (80,115)
> AND project_id=115;
> QUERY PLAN
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Aggregate (cost=178572.75..178572.76 rows=1 width=4)
> -> Index Scan using dneg_versions_project_id on versions
> (cost=0.00..178306.94 rows=106323 width=4)
> Index Cond: ((project_id = ANY ('{80,115}'::integer[])) AND
> (project_id = 115))
>
>
> ... is the sum of two other estimates, seen when rewriting the query
> using OR instead of IN:
>
>
> explain select count(id) from versions where (project_id = 80 OR
> project_id = 115) AND project_id=115;
> QUERY PLAN
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Aggregate (cost=305896.95..305896.96 rows=1 width=4)
> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on versions (cost=2315.08..305632.00
> rows=105980 width=4)
> Recheck Cond: (((project_id = 80) AND (project_id = 115)) OR
> ((project_id = 115) AND (project_id = 115)))
> -> BitmapOr (cost=2315.08..2315.08 rows=106323 width=0)
> -> Bitmap Index Scan on dneg_versions_project_id
> (cost=0.00..94.52 rows=3709 width=0)
> Index Cond: ((project_id = 80) AND (project_id = 115))
> -> Bitmap Index Scan on dneg_versions_project_id
> (cost=0.00..2167.57 rows=102614 width=0)
> Index Cond: ((project_id = 115) AND (project_id = 115))
>
> 106323 = 3709 + 102614
>
> Looks like the underlying problem is that the estimate for
> ((project_id = 115) AND (project_id = 115)) doesn't end up being the
> same as (project_id=115) on its own.
>
> Matt
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Matt Daw <matt@shotgunsoftware.com> wrote:
>> Howdy, the query generator in my app sometimes creates redundant
>> filters of the form:
>>
>> project_id IN ( <list of projects user has permission to see> ) AND
>> project_id = <single project user is looking at >
>>
>> ... and this is leading to a bad estimate (and thus a bad plan) on a
>> few complex queries. I've included simplified examples below. This
>> server is running 9.0.10 and the statistics target has been updated to
>> 1000 on the project_id column. I've also loaded the one table into a
>> 9.2.2 instance and replicated the behaviour.
>>
>> I can change how the query is being generated, but I'm curious why I'm
>> getting a bad estimate. Is this an expected result?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> =============
>>
>> 1) Filter on project_id only, row estimate for Bitmap Index Scan quite good.
>>
>> explain (analyze,buffers) select count(id) from versions WHERE project_id=115;
>>
>> QUERY PLAN
>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Aggregate (cost=1218111.01..1218111.02 rows=1 width=4) (actual
>> time=1531.341..1531.342 rows=1 loops=1)
>> Buffers: shared hit=452619
>> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on versions (cost=34245.06..1215254.86
>> rows=1142461 width=4) (actual time=148.394..1453.383 rows=1114197
>> loops=1)
>> Recheck Cond: (project_id = 115)
>> Buffers: shared hit=452619
>> -> Bitmap Index Scan on versions_project_id
>> (cost=0.00..33959.45 rows=1142461 width=0) (actual
>> time=139.709..139.709 rows=1116037 loops=1)
>> Index Cond: (project_id = 115)
>> Buffers: shared hit=22077
>> Total runtime: 1531.399 ms
>>
>> 2) Filter on project_id IN () AND project_id. Row estimate is ~10x lower.
>>
>> explain (analyze,buffers) select count(id) from versions WHERE
>> project_id IN (80,115) AND project_id=115;;
>>
>> QUERY PLAN
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Aggregate (cost=327066.18..327066.19 rows=1 width=4) (actual
>> time=1637.889..1637.889 rows=1 loops=1)
>> Buffers: shared hit=458389
>> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on versions (cost=3546.56..326793.17
>> rows=109201 width=4) (actual time=155.107..1557.453 rows=1114180
>> loops=1)
>> Recheck Cond: ((project_id = ANY ('{80,115}'::integer[])) AND
>> (project_id = 115))
>> Buffers: shared hit=458389
>> -> Bitmap Index Scan on versions_project_id
>> (cost=0.00..3519.26 rows=109201 width=0) (actual time=145.502..145.502
>> rows=1125436 loops=1)
>> Index Cond: ((project_id = ANY ('{80,115}'::integer[]))
>> AND (project_id = 115))
>> Buffers: shared hit=22076
>> Total runtime: 1637.941 ms
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Matt Daw <matt@shotgunsoftware.com> wrote:
> Quick follow up... I've found that the row estimate in:
>
> explain select count(id) from versions where project_id IN (80,115)
> AND project_id=115;
> QUERY PLAN
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Aggregate (cost=178572.75..178572.76 rows=1 width=4)
> -> Index Scan using dneg_versions_project_id on versions
> (cost=0.00..178306.94 rows=106323 width=4)
> Index Cond: ((project_id = ANY ('{80,115}'::integer[])) AND
> (project_id = 115))
>
>
> ... is the sum of two other estimates, seen when rewriting the query
> using OR instead of IN:
>
>
> explain select count(id) from versions where (project_id = 80 OR
> project_id = 115) AND project_id=115;
> QUERY PLAN
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Aggregate (cost=305896.95..305896.96 rows=1 width=4)
> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on versions (cost=2315.08..305632.00
> rows=105980 width=4)
> Recheck Cond: (((project_id = 80) AND (project_id = 115)) OR
> ((project_id = 115) AND (project_id = 115)))
> -> BitmapOr (cost=2315.08..2315.08 rows=106323 width=0)
> -> Bitmap Index Scan on dneg_versions_project_id
> (cost=0.00..94.52 rows=3709 width=0)
> Index Cond: ((project_id = 80) AND (project_id = 115))
> -> Bitmap Index Scan on dneg_versions_project_id
> (cost=0.00..2167.57 rows=102614 width=0)
> Index Cond: ((project_id = 115) AND (project_id = 115))
>
> 106323 = 3709 + 102614
>
> Looks like the underlying problem is that the estimate for
> ((project_id = 115) AND (project_id = 115)) doesn't end up being the
> same as (project_id=115) on its own.
>
> Matt
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Matt Daw <matt@shotgunsoftware.com> wrote:
>> Howdy, the query generator in my app sometimes creates redundant
>> filters of the form:
>>
>> project_id IN ( <list of projects user has permission to see> ) AND
>> project_id = <single project user is looking at >
>>
>> ... and this is leading to a bad estimate (and thus a bad plan) on a
>> few complex queries. I've included simplified examples below. This
>> server is running 9.0.10 and the statistics target has been updated to
>> 1000 on the project_id column. I've also loaded the one table into a
>> 9.2.2 instance and replicated the behaviour.
>>
>> I can change how the query is being generated, but I'm curious why I'm
>> getting a bad estimate. Is this an expected result?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> =============
>>
>> 1) Filter on project_id only, row estimate for Bitmap Index Scan quite good.
>>
>> explain (analyze,buffers) select count(id) from versions WHERE project_id=115;
>>
>> QUERY PLAN
>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Aggregate (cost=1218111.01..1218111.02 rows=1 width=4) (actual
>> time=1531.341..1531.342 rows=1 loops=1)
>> Buffers: shared hit=452619
>> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on versions (cost=34245.06..1215254.86
>> rows=1142461 width=4) (actual time=148.394..1453.383 rows=1114197
>> loops=1)
>> Recheck Cond: (project_id = 115)
>> Buffers: shared hit=452619
>> -> Bitmap Index Scan on versions_project_id
>> (cost=0.00..33959.45 rows=1142461 width=0) (actual
>> time=139.709..139.709 rows=1116037 loops=1)
>> Index Cond: (project_id = 115)
>> Buffers: shared hit=22077
>> Total runtime: 1531.399 ms
>>
>> 2) Filter on project_id IN () AND project_id. Row estimate is ~10x lower.
>>
>> explain (analyze,buffers) select count(id) from versions WHERE
>> project_id IN (80,115) AND project_id=115;;
>>
>> QUERY PLAN
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Aggregate (cost=327066.18..327066.19 rows=1 width=4) (actual
>> time=1637.889..1637.889 rows=1 loops=1)
>> Buffers: shared hit=458389
>> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on versions (cost=3546.56..326793.17
>> rows=109201 width=4) (actual time=155.107..1557.453 rows=1114180
>> loops=1)
>> Recheck Cond: ((project_id = ANY ('{80,115}'::integer[])) AND
>> (project_id = 115))
>> Buffers: shared hit=458389
>> -> Bitmap Index Scan on versions_project_id
>> (cost=0.00..3519.26 rows=109201 width=0) (actual time=145.502..145.502
>> rows=1125436 loops=1)
>> Index Cond: ((project_id = ANY ('{80,115}'::integer[]))
>> AND (project_id = 115))
>> Buffers: shared hit=22076
>> Total runtime: 1637.941 ms
