Karl Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [2007-06-18 09:39:49,797]ERROR Plan: Index Scan using i1181764142395 on
> intrinsiclink (cost=0.00..14177.29 rows=5 width=253)
> [2007-06-18 09:39:49,797]ERROR Plan: Index Cond: ((jobid = $2) AND
> ((childidhash)::text = ($3)::text))
> [2007-06-18 09:39:49,797]ERROR Plan: Filter: ((childid = ($4)::text)
> AND ((isnew = ($5)::bpchar) OR (isnew = ($6)::bpchar)))
>> In this case it looks like the planner is afraid that that's exactly
>> what will happen --- a cost of 14177 suggests that several thousand row
>> fetches are expected to happen, and yet it's only predicting 5 rows out
>> after the filter.
> Well, that's odd, because the hash in question that it is using is the
> SHA-1 hash of a URL. There's essentially one row per URL in this table.
What about isnew?
Also, how many rows do *you* expect out of the query? The planner is
not going to be aware of the hashed relationship between childidhash
and childid --- it'll think those are independent conditions which they
evidently aren't. So it may be that the query really does retrieve
thousands of rows, and the rows=5 estimate is bogus because it's
double-counting the selectivity of the childid condition.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
