Hello!
I'm using Postgres 7.4.5, sort_mem is 8192. Tables analyzed / vacuumed.
Here's a function I'm using to get an age from the user's birthday:
agey(date) -> SELECT date_part('year', age($1::timestamp))
The problem is, why do the plans differ so much between Q1 & Q3 below? Something with
age() being a non-IMMUTABLE function?
Q1: explain analyze SELECT al.pid, al.owner, al.title, al.front, al.created_at,
al.n_images, u.username as owner_str, u.image as owner_image, u.puid as owner_puid
FROM albums al , users u WHERE u.uid = al.owner AND al.security='a' AND al.n_images
> 0 AND date_part('year', age(u.born)) > 17 AND date_part('year', age(u.born)) < 20
AND city = 1 ORDER BY al.id DESC LIMIT 9;
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit (cost=5700.61..5700.63 rows=9 width=183) (actual time=564.291..564.299 rows=9
loops=1)
-> Sort (cost=5700.61..5700.82 rows=83 width=183) (actual time=564.289..564.291
rows=9 loops=1)
Sort Key: al.id
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..5697.97 rows=83 width=183) (actual
time=30.029..526.211 rows=4510 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on users u (cost=0.00..5311.05 rows=86 width=86) (actual
time=5.416..421.264 rows=3021 loops=1)
Filter: ((date_part('year'::text,
age((('now'::text)::date)::timestamp with time zone, (born)::timestamp with time
zone)) > 17::double precision) AND (date_part('year'::text,
age((('now'::text)::date)::timestamp with time zone, (born)::timestamp with time
zone)) < 20::double precision) AND (city = 1))
-> Index Scan using albums_owner_key on albums al (cost=0.00..4.47
rows=2 width=101) (actual time=0.014..0.025 rows=1 loops=3021)
Index Cond: ("outer".uid = al."owner")
Filter: (("security" = 'a'::bpchar) AND (n_images > 0))
Total runtime: 565.120 ms
(10 rows)
Result when removing the second age-check (AND date_part('year', age(u.born)) < 20):
Q2: explain analyze SELECT al.pid, al.owner, al.title, al.front, al.created_at,
al.n_images, u.username as owner_str, u.image as owner_image, u.puid as owner_puid
FROM albums al, users u WHERE u.uid = al.owner AND al.security='a' AND al.n_images >
0 AND date_part('year', age(u.born)) > 17 AND city = 1 ORDER BY al.id DESC LIMIT 9;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit (cost=0.00..140.95 rows=9 width=183) (actual time=0.217..2.474 rows=9 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..86200.99 rows=5504 width=183) (actual
time=0.216..2.464 rows=9 loops=1)
-> Index Scan Backward using albums_id_key on albums al (cost=0.00..2173.32
rows=27610 width=101) (actual time=0.086..1.080 rows=40 loops=1)
Filter: (("security" = 'a'::bpchar) AND (n_images > 0))
-> Index Scan using users_pkey on users u (cost=0.00..3.03 rows=1 width=86)
(actual time=0.031..0.031 rows=0 loops=40)
Index Cond: (u.uid = "outer"."owner")
Filter: ((date_part('year'::text, age((('now'::text)::date)::timestamp
with time zone, (born)::timestamp with time zone)) > 17::double precision) AND (city =
1))
Total runtime: 2.611 ms
(8 rows)
Trying another approach: adding a separate "stale" age-column to the users-table:
alter table users add column age smallint;
update users set age=date_part('year'::text, age((('now'::text)::date)::timestamp with
time zone, (born)::timestamp with time zone));
analyze users;
Result with separate column:
Q3: explain analyze SELECT al.pid, al.owner, al.title, al.front, al.created_at,
al.n_images, u.username as owner_str, u.image as owner_image, u.puid as owner_puid
FROM albums al , users u WHERE u.uid = al.owner AND al.security='a' AND al.n_images
> 0 AND age > 17 AND age < 20 AND city = 1 ORDER BY al.id DESC LIMIT 9;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit (cost=0.00..263.40 rows=9 width=183) (actual time=0.165..2.832 rows=9 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..85925.69 rows=2936 width=183) (actual
time=0.163..2.825 rows=9 loops=1)
-> Index Scan Backward using albums_id_key on albums al (cost=0.00..2173.32
rows=27610 width=101) (actual time=0.043..1.528 rows=56 loops=1)
Filter: (("security" = 'a'::bpchar) AND (n_images > 0))
-> Index Scan using users_pkey on users u (cost=0.00..3.02 rows=1 width=86)
(actual time=0.020..0.020 rows=0 loops=56)
Index Cond: (u.uid = "outer"."owner")
Filter: ((age > 17) AND (age < 20) AND (city = 1))
Total runtime: 2.973 ms
(8 rows)
My question is, why doesn't the planner pick the same plan for Q1 & Q3?
/Nichlas
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
