Re: Strange query planner behavior
Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.db.postgresql.bugs |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20191130145352.hhr4n45cdsyjkzr5@development> |
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 11:29:53AM +0100, EffiSYS / Martin Querleu wrote: >Hi Pavel > >Thanks for the fast reply >Our databases are VACUUMed everyday. I did it again but no difference > >Here are the query plans: > >EFT_MBON=# explain analyse select * from livraison where id_master = 10; > QUERY PLAN >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Index Scan using pour_recherche_sous_livraison on livraison > (cost=0.03..15.04 rows=1 width=697) (actual time=0.017..0.017 rows=0 >loops=1) >  Index Cond: (id_master = 10) > Planning Time: 0.124 ms > Execution Time: 0.036 ms >(4 lignes) > >EFT_MBON=# explain analyse select * from livraison where id_master = >(select 10); >                           QUERY PLAN >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Seq Scan on livraison  (cost=0.01..2888156.69 rows=1917632 width=697) >(actual time=1334.615..1334.615 rows=0 loops=1) >  Filter: (id_master = $0) >  Rows Removed by Filter: 1918196 >  InitPlan 1 (returns $0) >   ->  Result  (cost=0.00..0.01 rows=1 width=4) (actual >time=0.000..0.001 rows=1 loops=1) > Planning Time: 0.138 ms > Execution Time: 1334.642 ms >(7 lignes) > >Regarding the cost calculator the configuration is as follows: > >random_page_cost and seq_page_cost are identical since the data is >100% in RAM (both at 15.0, 3 times default) Ummm, what? Does this mean you have random_page_cost = 15 seq_page_cost = 15 Neither of that is 3 times the default value, though, so maybe I just don't understand correctly. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services