On 2014-04-25 12:05:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > The case I am worried most about is queries like:
> > SELECT a, b FROM f WHERE f > ROW(38, 'whatever') ORDER BY f;
> > I've seen such generated by a some query generators for paging. But I
> > guess that's something we're going to have to accept.
> 
> Meh ... is it likely that the columns involved in an ordering comparison
> would be so wide as to be toasted out-of-line?  Such a query would only be
> fast if the row value were indexed, which would pretty much preclude use
> of wide columns.

In the cases I've seen it it was usually used in addition to a indexable
condition, just for paging across different http requests.

As completely ridiculous example:
before:
postgres=# EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) SELECT * FROM pg_rewrite r WHERE r > 
('x'::name, '11854'::oid, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL);
                                                QUERY PLAN                      
                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_rewrite r  (cost=0.00..12.36 rows=36 width=720) (actual 
time=0.425..0.425 rows=0 loops=1)
   Filter: (r.* > ROW('x'::name, 11854::oid, NULL::unknown, NULL::unknown, 
NULL::unknown, NULL::unknown))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 109
   Buffers: shared hit=11
 Planning time: 0.141 ms
 Execution time: 0.485 ms

after:
EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) SELECT * FROM pg_rewrite r WHERE r > ('x'::name, 
'11854'::oid, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL);
                                                 QUERY PLAN                     
                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seq Scan on pg_rewrite r  (cost=0.00..12.36 rows=36 width=720) (actual 
time=14.257..14.257 rows=0 loops=1)
   Filter: (r.* > ROW('x'::name, 11854::oid, NULL::unknown, NULL::unknown, 
NULL::unknown, NULL::unknown))
   Rows Removed by Filter: 109
   Buffers: shared hit=152
 Planning time: 0.139 ms
 Execution time: 14.310 ms
(6 rows)


> I'm actually more worried about the function-returning-tuple case, as that
> might bite people who thought they'd use some cute functional notation or
> other and it wouldn't cost 'em anything.

Right, that's not actually all that infrequent :/.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- 
 Andres Freund                     http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to