Sorry for the late reply. Was feeling a bit under the weather
this weekend and didn't get a chance to look at this.
--- Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> patrick ~ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > PREPARE pkk_00 ( integer ) <the def of pkk_offer_has_pending_purc( integer
> )
>
> This is what you want to do, but not quite like that. The PREPARE
> determines the plan and so VACUUMing and re-EXECUTing is going to show
> the same plan. What we need to look at is
> - standing start
> PREPARE pkk_00 ...
> EXPLAIN ANALYZE EXECUTE pkk_00 ...
> VACUUM ANALYZE;
> PREPARE pkk_01 ...
> EXPLAIN ANALYZE EXECUTE pkk_01 ...
But of course! I feel a bit silly now.
This is what I get after following Tom's directions:
pkk=# prepare pkk_00 ( integer ) as select ...
PREPARE
Time: 1.753 ms
pkk=# execute pkk_00( 241 );
case
------
f
(1 row)
Time: 0.788 ms
pkk=# explain analyze execute pkk_00( 241 );
QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Result (cost=10.73..10.74 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.067..0.068 rows=1
loops=1)
InitPlan
-> Limit (cost=0.00..10.73 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.055..0.055
rows=0 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using pur_offer_id_idx on pkk_purchase p0
(cost=0.00..20690.18 rows=1929 width=4) (actual time=0.052..0.052 rows=0
loops=1)
Index Cond: (offer_id = $1)
Filter: ((((expire_time)::timestamp with time zone > now()) OR
(expire_time IS NULL) OR (pending = true)) AND ((cancel_date IS NULL) OR
(pending = true)))
Total runtime: 0.213 ms
(7 rows)
Time: 24.654 ms
pkk=# vacuum analyze ;
VACUUM
Time: 128826.078 ms
pkk=# prepare pkk_01 ( integer ) as select ...
PREPARE
Time: 104.658 ms
pkk=# execute pkk_01( 241 );
case
------
f
(1 row)
Time: 7652.708 ms
pkk=# explain analyze execute pkk_01( 241 );
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Result (cost=2.66..2.67 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=2872.211..2872.213
rows=1 loops=1)
InitPlan
-> Limit (cost=0.00..2.66 rows=1 width=4) (actual
time=2872.189..2872.189 rows=0 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on pkk_purchase p0 (cost=0.00..37225.83 rows=13983
width=4) (actual time=2872.180..2872.180 rows=0 loops=1)
Filter: ((offer_id = $1) AND (((expire_time)::timestamp with
time zone > now()) OR (expire_time IS NULL) OR (pending = true)) AND
((cancel_date IS NULL) OR (pending = true)))
Total runtime: 2872.339 ms
(6 rows)
Time: 2873.479 ms
So it looks like after the VACCUM the planner resorts to Seq Scan
rather than Index Scan.
This is because of the value of correlation field in pg_stats
(according to PostgreSQL docs) being closer to 0 rather than
±1:
pkk=# select tablename,attname,correlation from pg_stats where tablename =
'pkk_purchase' and attname = 'offer_id' ;
tablename | attname | correlation
--------------+----------+-------------
pkk_purchase | offer_id | 0.428598
(1 row)
So I started to experiment with ALTER TABLE SET STATISTICS
values to see which gets the correlation closer to ±1. The
trend seems to indicat the higher the stat value is set it
pushes the correlation value closer to 0:
set statistics correlation
----------------------------
800 0.393108
500 0.408137
200 0.43197
50 0.435211
1 0.45758
And a subsequent PREPARE and EXPLAIN ANALYZE confirms that
the Planer reverts back to using the Index Scan after setting
stats to 1 (even though correlation value is still closer
to 0 than 1):
pkk=# explain analyze execute pkk_02( 241 );
QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Result (cost=2.95..2.96 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.068..0.069 rows=1
loops=1)
InitPlan
-> Limit (cost=0.00..2.95 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.056..0.056
rows=0 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using pur_offer_id_idx on pkk_purchase p0
(cost=0.00..35810.51 rows=12119 width=4) (actual time=0.053..0.053 rows=0
loops=1)
Index Cond: (offer_id = $1)
Filter: ((((expire_time)::timestamp with time zone > now()) OR
(expire_time IS NULL) OR (pending = true)) AND ((cancel_date IS NULL) OR
(pending = true)))
Total runtime: 0.200 ms
(7 rows)
So, is this the ultimate solution to this issue?
--patrick
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
