Dear Tom,
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 08:52:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>..
> Yeah, that main.EffectiveId = main.id clause is going to be
> underestimated by a factor of about 200, which is most though not all of
> your rowcount error for that table. Not sure whether you can do much
> about it, if the query is coming from a query generator that you can't
> change. If you can change it, try replacing main.EffectiveId = main.id
> with the underlying function, eg if they're integers use
> int4eq(main.EffectiveId, main.id). This will bypass the overoptimistic
> estimator for the "=" operator and get you a default selectivity
> estimate of (IIRC) 0.3333. Which is still off, but only by 3x not 200x,
> and that should be close enough to get a decent plan.
Great idea!
rt=# EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT DISTINCT main.* FROM Tickets main JOIN
Transactions Transactions_1 ON ( Transactions_1.ObjectId = main.id ) JOIN
Attachments Attachments_2 ON ( Attachments_2.TransactionId = Transactions_1.id
) WHERE (Transactions_1.ObjectType = 'RT::Ticket') AND (main.Status !=
'deleted') AND (main.Status = 'resolved' AND main.LastUpdated > '2008-12-31
23:00:00' AND main.Created > '2005-12-31 23:00:00' AND main.Queue = '15' AND (
Attachments_2.trigrams @@ text_to_trgm_tsquery('uir') AND Attachments_2.Content
ILIKE '%uir%' ) ) AND (main.Type = 'ticket') AND int4eq(main.EffectiveId,
main.id) ORDER BY main.id ASC;
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unique (cost=37504.61..37505.00 rows=6 width=162) (actual
time=1377.087..1383.844 rows=649 loops=1)
-> Sort (cost=37504.61..37504.62 rows=6 width=162) (actual
time=1377.085..1377.973 rows=5280 loops=1)
Sort Key: main.id, main.effectiveid, main.issuestatement,
main.resolution, main.owner, main.subject, main.initialpriority,
main.finalpriority, main.priority, main.timeestimated, main.timeworked,
main.timeleft, main.told, main.starts, main.started, main.due, main.resolved,
main.lastupdatedby, main.lastupdated, main.creator, main.created, main.disabled
Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 1598kB
-> Nested Loop (cost=7615.47..37504.53 rows=6 width=162) (actual
time=13.678..1322.292 rows=5280 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=7615.47..37179.22 rows=74 width=4)
(actual time=5.670..1266.703 rows=15593 loops=1)
-> Bitmap Heap Scan on attachments attachments_2
(cost=7615.47..36550.26 rows=74 width=4) (actual time=5.658..1196.160
rows=15593 loops=1)
Recheck Cond: (trigrams @@ '''uir'''::tsquery)
Filter: (content ~~* '%uir%'::text)
-> Bitmap Index Scan on attachments_textsearch
(cost=0.00..7615.45 rows=8016 width=0) (actual time=3.863..3.863 rows=15972
loops=1)
Index Cond: (trigrams @@ '''uir'''::tsquery)
-> Index Scan using transactions_pkey on transactions
transactions_1 (cost=0.00..8.49 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.003..0.003
rows=1 loops=15593)
Index Cond: (transactions_1.id =
attachments_2.transactionid)
Filter: ((transactions_1.objecttype)::text =
'RT::Ticket'::text)
-> Index Scan using tickets5 on tickets main (cost=0.00..4.38
rows=1 width=162) (actual time=0.003..0.003 rows=0 loops=15593)
Index Cond: (main.id = transactions_1.objectid)
Filter: (((main.status)::text <> 'deleted'::text) AND
(main.lastupdated > '2008-12-31 23:00:00'::timestamp without time zone) AND
(main.created > '2005-12-31 23:00:00'::timestamp without time zone) AND
int4eq(main.effectiveid, main.id) AND (main.queue = 15) AND ((main.type)::text
= 'ticket'::text) AND ((main.status)::text = 'resolved'::text))
Total runtime: 1384.038 ms
(18 rows)
Execution plan desired! :)
Indexes:
"tickets_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (id)
"tickets1" btree (queue, status)
"tickets2" btree (owner)
"tickets3" btree (effectiveid)
"tickets4" btree (id, status)
"tickets5" btree (id, effectiveid)
Interesting the original index tickets5 is still used for
int4eq(main.effectiveid, main.id), no need to build a different.
Great!
I think no problem to do this small hack into the SearchBuilder. I did
already one for full text search so there will be two hacks :).
Thanks very much.
Best Regards
--
Zito
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
