Josh Berkus <email@example.com> writes:
> -> Merge Right Join (cost=8.92..9.26 rows=1 width=529) (actual
> time=129.100..129.103 rows=1 loops=1)
> Merge Cond: ("outer".object_id = "inner".parent_application_id)
> -> Index Scan using acs_objects_object_id_p_hhkb1 on
> acs_objects t98 (cost=0.00..2554.07 rows=33510 width=81) (actual
> time=0.043..56.392 rows=33510 loops=1)
> -> Sort (cost=8.92..8.93 rows=1 width=452) (actual
> time=0.309..0.310 rows=1 loops=1)
> Sort Key: t22.parent_application_id
> Here the planner chooses a merge right join. This decision seems to have
> made entirely on the basis of the cost of the join itself (total of 17)
> without taking the cost of the sort and index access (total of 2600+) into
> Tom, is this a possible error in planner logic?
No, it certainly hasn't forgotten to add in the costs of the inputs.
There might be a bug here, but if so it's much more subtle than that.
It looks to me like the planner believes that the one value of
t22.parent_application_id joins to something very early in the
acs_objects_object_id_p_hhkb1 sort order, and that it will therefore not
be necessary to run the indexscan to completion (or indeed very far at
all, considering that it's including such a small fraction of the total
[EMAIL PROTECTED] pointed out recently that this effect doesn't apply to
the outer side of an outer join; releases before 7.4.8 mistakenly think
it does. But unless my wires are totally crossed today, acs_objects is
the nullable side here and so that error isn't applicable anyway.
So, the usual questions: have these two tables been ANALYZEd lately?
If so, can we see the pg_stats rows for the object_id and
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?