Thread: Reasons for choosing one execution plan over another?

Hi all,

I have a number of Postgres 9.2.4 databases with the same schema but with
slightly different contents, running on small servers that are basically
alike (8-16 GB ram).

When I run the same query on these databases it results in one of two
different execution plans where one is much faster (appx. 50 times) than
the other. Each database always gives the same plan, and vacuuming,
updating statistics and reindexing doesn't seem to make any difference.

Clearly the fast plan is preferred, but I haven't been able to identify
any pattern (table sizes, tuning etc.) in why one plan is chosen over the
other, so is there any way I can make Postgres tell me why it chooses to
plan the way it does?

As reference I have included the query and execution plans for two
different databases below. The x and e tables contain about 5 and 10
million records respectively, and the performance difference is perfectly
reasonable as the outer loop has to process 3576 rows in the fast case and
154149 rows in the slow case.

Best regards & thanks,
  Mikkel Lauritsen

---

Query:

SELECT x.r, e.id, a.id
FROM x
  INNER JOIN e ON x.id = e.id
  INNER JOIN a ON x.a_id = a.id
  INNER JOIN i ON a.i_id = i.id
WHERE e.h_id = 'foo' AND i.c = 'bar';

Fast plan:

 Nested Loop  (cost=0.00..24553.77 rows=1 width=86) (actual
time=2.810..102.451 rows=20 loops=1)
   Join Filter: (x.a_id = a.id)
   Rows Removed by Join Filter: 3556
   ->  Nested Loop  (cost=0.00..16.55 rows=1 width=39) (actual
time=0.036..0.046 rows=3 loops=1)
         ->  Index Scan using i_c_idx on i  (cost=0.00..8.27 rows=1
width=39) (actual time=0.019..0.020 rows=1 loops=1)
               Index Cond: (c = 'bar'::text)
         ->  Index Scan using a_i_id_idx on a  (cost=0.00..8.27 rows=1
width=78) (actual time=0.014..0.021 rows=3 loops=1)
               Index Cond: (i_id = i.id)
   ->  Nested Loop  (cost=0.00..24523.00 rows=1138 width=86) (actual
time=2.641..33.818 rows=1192 loops=3)
         ->  Index Scan using e_h_id_idx on e  (cost=0.00..6171.55
rows=1525 width=39) (actual time=0.049..1.108 rows=1857 loops=3)
               Index Cond: (h_id = 'foo'::text)
         ->  Index Scan using x_id_idx on x  (cost=0.00..12.02 rows=1
width=86) (actual time=0.017..0.017 rows=1 loops=5571)
               Index Cond: (id = e.id)
 Total runtime: 102.526 ms

Slow plan:

 Nested Loop  (cost=0.00..858.88 rows=1 width=86) (actual
time=89.430..2589.905 rows=11 loops=1)
   ->  Nested Loop  (cost=0.00..448.38 rows=169 width=86) (actual
time=0.135..142.246 rows=154149 loops=1)
         ->  Nested Loop  (cost=0.00..16.55 rows=1 width=39) (actual
time=0.056..0.064 rows=3 loops=1)
               ->  Index Scan using i_c_idx on i  (cost=0.00..8.27 rows=1
width=39) (actual time=0.030..0.030 rows=1 loops=1)
                     Index Cond: (c = 'bar'::text)
               ->  Index Scan using a_i_id_idx on a  (cost=0.00..8.27
rows=1 width=78) (actual time=0.022..0.028 rows=3 loops=1)
                     Index Cond: (i_id = i.id)
         ->  Index Scan using x_a_id_idx on x  (cost=0.00..372.48
rows=5935 width=86) (actual time=0.065..35.479 rows=51383 loops=3)
               Index Cond: (a_id = a.id)
   ->  Index Scan using e_pkey on e  (cost=0.00..2.42 rows=1 width=39)
(actual time=0.015..0.015 rows=0 loops=154149)
         Index Cond: (id = x.id)
         Filter: (h_id = 'foo'::text)
         Rows Removed by Filter: 1
 Total runtime: 2589.970 ms

Il 11/09/2013 13:16, Mikkel Lauritsen ha scritto:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a number of Postgres 9.2.4 databases with the same schema but with
> slightly different contents, running on small servers that are basically
> alike (8-16 GB ram).
>
I think that your answer can be found in your statement "slightly
different contents". Planner choices query execution plans basing on
statistics obtained during ANALYSE operations, including the autovacuum.
In this way, Planner can decide which execution plan is the most
suitable. Different content of values in your table could correspond to
different statistical distribution of values in your columns and of rows
in your tables, bringing to different choices of the Planner. Execution
times can be very different, also by factor 10-100.

There is a parameter (stat_target) which set the "selectivity" of
statistical samples of a table. Maybe, but it's not necessarily true,
you could obtain more comparable execution times for the two execution
plans changing it, probably increasing them.

  Giuseppe.

--
Giuseppe Broccolo - 2ndQuadrant Italy
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
giuseppe.broccolo@2ndQuadrant.it | www.2ndQuadrant.it

Il 11/09/2013 13:16, Mikkel Lauritsen ha scritto:

Hi all,

I have a number of Postgres 9.2.4 databases with the same schema but with
slightly different contents, running on small servers that are basically
alike (8-16 GB ram).

I think that your answer can be found in your statement "slightly different contents". Planner choices query execution plans basing on statistics obtained during ANALYSE operations, including the autovacuum. In this way, Planner can decide which execution plan is the most suitable. Different content of values in your table could correspond to different statistical distribution of values in your columns and of rows in your tables, bringing to different choices of the Planner. Execution times can be very different, also by factor 10-100.

There is a parameter (stat_target) which set the "selectivity" of statistical samples of a table. Maybe, but it's not necessarily true, you could obtain more comparable execution times for the two execution plans changing it, probably increasing them.

 Giuseppe.