I have been trying to track down a performance issue we've been having with a INSERT INTO ... SELECT query run against a partitioned table on postgres. The problem appears to be in the plan building of the query and after some further research I think I have nailed down a simplified example of the problem. Attached is a simple script that will build an example of our table structure load 2 records and run the explain that produces the plan in question. The query plan looks like the following:
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
Result (cost=0.00..0.01 rows=1 width=0)
One-Time Filter: false
Nested Loop (cost=23.50..47.08 rows=4 width=1036)
-> Append (cost=0.00..23.50 rows=2 width=520)
-> Seq Scan on base (cost=0.00..11.75 rows=1 width=520)
Filter: (id = 1)
-> Seq Scan on base_1 base (cost=0.00..11.75 rows=1 width=520)
Filter: (id = 1)
-> Materialize (cost=23.50..23.52 rows=2 width=520)
-> Append (cost=0.00..23.50 rows=2 width=520)
-> Seq Scan on another (cost=0.00..11.75 rows=1 width=520)
Filter: (id = 1)
-> Seq Scan on another_1 another (cost=0.00..11.75 rows=1
width=520)
Filter: (id = 1)
Result (cost=23.50..47.08 rows=1 width=1036)
One-Time Filter: false
-> Nested Loop (cost=23.50..47.08 rows=1 width=1036)
-> Append (cost=0.00..23.50 rows=2 width=520)
-> Seq Scan on base (cost=0.00..11.75 rows=1 width=520)
Filter: (id = 1)
-> Seq Scan on base_1 base (cost=0.00..11.75 rows=1 width=520)
Filter: (id = 1)
-> Materialize (cost=23.50..23.52 rows=2 width=520)
-> Append (cost=0.00..23.50 rows=2 width=520)
-> Seq Scan on another (cost=0.00..11.75 rows=1
width=520)
Filter: (id = 1)
-> Seq Scan on another_1 another (cost=0.00..11.75
rows=1 width=520)
Filter: (id = 1)
Result (cost=23.50..47.08 rows=1 width=1036)
One-Time Filter: false
-> Nested Loop (cost=23.50..47.08 rows=1 width=1036)
-> Append (cost=0.00..23.50 rows=2 width=520)
-> Seq Scan on base (cost=0.00..11.75 rows=1 width=520)
Filter: (id = 1)
-> Seq Scan on base_1 base (cost=0.00..11.75 rows=1 width=520)
Filter: (id = 1)
-> Materialize (cost=23.50..23.52 rows=2 width=520)
-> Append (cost=0.00..23.50 rows=2 width=520)
-> Seq Scan on another (cost=0.00..11.75 rows=1
width=520)
Filter: (id = 1)
-> Seq Scan on another_1 another (cost=0.00..11.75
rows=1 width=520)
Filter: (id = 1)
(45 rows)
The problem appears to be the multiple Result sections. I don't understand why
this is happening but I do know that a new results section occurs for each new
partition you add. The result is that in my actual system where we have a
couple hundred partitions this query takes minutes to plan. I've tried this on
a Dell (24 core 2.66 GHz) with 192 GB of RAM running postgres 8.3.7 and an IBM
570 (16 core 1.6 Ghz Power 5) with 16 GB of RAM running postgres 8.4.2 both
running RedHat Enterprise 5.0 and both take what I would consider way to long
to generate the plan.
The 8.3.7 version has constraint exclusion on and the 8.4.2 version has
constraint exclusion partial.
test.sql
Description: test.sql
-- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
