Igor Neyman <iney...@perceptron.com> writes:
> table_a is too small, just 50 records.
> Optimizer decided (correctly) that Seq Scan is cheaper than using an index.

Yeah.  The given test case is quite useless for demonstrating that you
have a problem, since it's actually *faster* on 9.5 than 9.1.

What I suspect is happening is that 9.2 and up assume that an unnest()
will produce 100 rows, whereas 9.1 assumed it would produce only 1 row.
The latter happened to be more accurate for this specific case, though
in general it could result in selection of very bad plans.

If you are intending only one value be selected, don't use unnest();
you'd be better off with "(string_to_array('5010010000',','))[1]"
or something like that.

In the long run we should teach the planner how to produce better
estimates for unnest-on-a-constant-array, though I'm unsure whether
that would help your real application as opposed to this test case.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to