I think whatever the reasons for the different query plans are (and if that can be fixed) - you CANNOT assume that data comes in sorted order when you do not use order by. Thats what every database does this way. So, use order by, or you'll be in trouble sooner or later. Best regards, Mario Weilguni Am Freitag, 23. Dezember 2005 13:34 schrieb Carlos Benkendorf: > Hi, > > We have more than 200 customers running 8.0.3 and two weeks ago started > migration project to 8.1.1.After the first migration to 8.1.1 we had to > return back to 8.0.3 because some applications were not working right. > > Our user told me that records are not returning more in the correct > order, so I started logging and saw that the select clause wasn´t not used > with the ORDER BY clause. It seemed a simple problem to be solved. > > I asked the programmers that they should add the ORDER BY clause if they > need the rows in a certain order and they told me they could not do it > because it will cost too much and the response time is bigger than not > using ORDER BY. I disagreed with them because there was an index with the > same order needed for the order by. Before starting a figth we decided to > explain analyze both select types and discover who was right. For my > surprise the select with order by was really more expensive than the select > without the order by. I will not bet any more...;-) > > For some implementation reason in 8.0.3 the query is returning the rows > in the correct order even without the order by but in 8.1.1 probably the > implementation changed and the rows are not returning in the correct order. > > We need the 8.1 for other reasons but this order by behavior stopped the > migration project. > > Some friends of the list tried to help us and I did some configuration > changes like increased work_mem and changed the primary columns from > numeric types to smallint/integer/bigint but even so the runtime and costs > are far from the ones from the selects without the ORDER BY clause. > > What I can not understand is why the planner is not using the same > retrieving method with the order by clause as without the order by clause. > All the rows are retrieved in the correct order in both methods but one is > much cheaper (without order by) than the other (with order by). Should not > the planner choice that one? > > Can someone explain me why the planner is not choosing the same method > used with the selects without the order by clause instead of using a sort > that is much more expensive? > > Without order by: > explain analyze > SELECT * FROM iparq.ARRIPT > where > (ANOCALC = 2005 > and CADASTRO = 19 > and CODVENCTO = 00 > and PARCELA >= 00 ) > or > (ANOCALC = 2005 > and CADASTRO = 19 > and CODVENCTO > 00 ) > or > (ANOCALC = 2005 > and CADASTRO > 19 ) > or > (ANOCALC > 2005 ); > Index Scan using pk_arript, pk_arript, pk_arript, pk_arript on arript > (cost=0.00..122255.35 rows=146602 width=897) (actual time=9.303..1609.987 > rows=167710 loops=1) Index Cond: (((anocalc = 2005::numeric) AND (cadastro > = 19::numeric) AND (codvencto = 0::numeric) AND (parcela >= 0::numeric)) OR > ((anocalc = 2005::numeric) AND (cadastro = 19::numeric) AND (codvencto > > 0::numeric)) OR ((anocalc = 2005::numeric) AND (cadastro > 19::numeric)) OR > (anocalc > 2005::numeric)) Total runtime: 1712.456 ms > (3 rows) > > > With order by: > explain analyze > SELECT * FROM iparq.ARRIPT > where > (ANOCALC = 2005 > and CADASTRO = 19 > and CODVENCTO = 00 > and PARCELA >= 00 ) > or > (ANOCALC = 2005 > and CADASTRO = 19 > and CODVENCTO > 00 ) > or > (ANOCALC = 2005 > and CADASTRO > 19 ) > or > (ANOCALC > 2005 ) > order by ANOCALC asc, CADASTRO asc, CODVENCTO asc, PARCELA asc; > Sort (cost=201296.59..201663.10 rows=146602 width=897) (actual > time=9752.555..10342.363 rows=167710 loops=1) Sort Key: anocalc, cadastro, > codvencto, parcela > -> Index Scan using pk_arript, pk_arript, pk_arript, pk_arript on > arript (cost=0.00..122255.35 rows=146602 width=897) (actual > time=0.402..1425.085 rows=167710 loops=1) Index Cond: (((anocalc = > 2005::numeric) AND (cadastro = 19::numeric) AND (codvencto = 0::numeric) > AND (parcela >= 0::numeric)) OR ((anocalc = 2005::numeric) AND (cadastro = > 19::numeric) AND (codvencto > 0::numeric)) OR ((anocalc = 2005::numeric) > AND (cadastro > 19::numeric)) OR (anocalc > 2005::numeric)) Total runtime: > 10568.290 ms > (5 rows) > > Table definition: > Table "iparq.arript" > Column | Type | Modifiers > -------------------+-----------------------+----------- > anocalc | numeric(4,0) | not null > cadastro | numeric(8,0) | not null > codvencto | numeric(2,0) | not null > parcela | numeric(2,0) | not null > inscimob | character varying(18) | not null > codvencto2 | numeric(2,0) | not null > parcela2 | numeric(2,0) | not null > codpropr | numeric(10,0) | not null > dtaven | numeric(8,0) | not null > anocalc2 | numeric(4,0) | > ... > ... > Indexes: > "pk_arript" PRIMARY KEY, btree (anocalc, cadastro, codvencto, parcela) > "iarchave04" UNIQUE, btree (cadastro, anocalc, codvencto, parcela) > "iarchave02" btree (inscimob, anocalc, codvencto2, parcela2) > "iarchave03" btree (codpropr, dtaven) > "iarchave05" btree (anocalc, inscimob, codvencto2, parcela2) > > Best regards and thank you very much in advance, > > Carlos Benkendorf > > > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! doce lar. Faça do Yahoo! sua homepage.
