> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-performance-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Nikolay Samokhvalov
>
> What should I do to make Postgres work properly in such cases (I have
> a lot of similar queries; surely, they are executed w/o seqscans, but
> overall picture is the same - I see that starting from sub-selects
> dramatically decrease performance)?
How about this:
explain analyze
select (select typname from pg_type where pg_type.oid=mainq.prorettype limit
1)
from (select * from pg_proc offset 1500 limit 1) mainq;
QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Subquery Scan mainq (cost=50.99..56.85 rows=1 width=4) (actual
time=13.646..13.659 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Limit (cost=50.99..51.02 rows=1 width=310) (actual
time=13.575..13.579 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on pg_proc (cost=0.00..62.34 rows=1834 width=310)
(actual time=0.014..7.297 rows=1501 loops=1)
SubPlan
-> Limit (cost=0.00..5.82 rows=1 width=64) (actual time=0.038..0.043
rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using pg_type_oid_index on pg_type
(cost=0.00..5.82 rows=1 width=64) (actual time=0.028..0.028 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: (oid = $0)
Total runtime: 13.785 ms
I would expect you to get closer to 2 ms on that query. My machine takes 13
ms to do just the seq scan of pg_proc.
Dave
