On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 13:47 -0500, george young wrote:
> Table sizes: parameters has 2.1512e+07 tuples, run_opsets has 211745 tuples.
>
> explain analyze SELECT ro.run, ro.opset_num, p.step_num FROM run_opsets ro,
> parameters p WHERE ro.run = p.run AND ro.opset_num = p.opset_num and
> ro.run='team9';
> QUERY PLAN
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Nested Loop (cost=2.16..7957.40 rows=6707 width=22) (actual
> time=14.986..70197.129 rows=43050 loops=1)
> -> Index Scan using run_opsets_pkey on run_opsets ro (cost=0.00..128.75
> rows=71 width=18) (actual time=0.386..62.959 rows=263 loops=1)
> Index Cond: (run = 'team9'::text)
> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on parameters p (cost=2.16..109.93 rows=27 width=22)
> (actual time=1.591..266.211 rows=164 loops=263)
> Recheck Cond: (('team9'::text = p.run) AND ("outer".opset_num =
> p.opset_num))
> -> Bitmap Index Scan on parameters_idx (cost=0.00..2.16 rows=27
> width=0) (actual time=1.153..1.153 rows=164 loops=263)
> Index Cond: (('team9'::text = p.run) AND ("outer".opset_num =
> p.opset_num))
> Total runtime: 70237.727 ms
> (8 rows)
The planner appears to be underestimating the number of rows retrieved
in both cases, then multiplying them together to make it worse.
Multi-column indexes provide less accurate estimates (right now).
Looks like a hash join might be faster. What is your work_mem set to?
Can you SET enable_nestloop=off and rerun the EXPLAIN ANALYZE?
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
