Did anybody get a chance to look at this? Is it expected behavior? Everyone seemed so incredulous, I hoped maybe this exposed a bug that would be fixed in a near release. -----Original Message----- From: Adam Rich [mailto:adam.r@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 11:53 PM To: 'Joshua D. Drake'; 'Tom Lane' Cc: 'Craig A. James'; 'PostgreSQL Performance' Subject: RE: [PERFORM] High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS Here's another, more drastic example... Here the order by / limit version runs in less than 1/7000 the time of the MAX() version. select max(item_id) from events e, receipts r, receipt_items ri where e.event_id=r.event_id and r.receipt_id=ri.receipt_id Aggregate (cost=10850.84..10850.85 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=816.382..816.383 rows=1 loops=1) -> Hash Join (cost=2072.12..10503.30 rows=139019 width=4) (actual time=155.177..675.870 rows=147383 loops=1) Hash Cond: (ri.receipt_id = r.receipt_id) -> Seq Scan on receipt_items ri (cost=0.00..4097.56 rows=168196 width=8) (actual time=0.009..176.894 rows=168196 loops=1) -> Hash (cost=2010.69..2010.69 rows=24571 width=4) (actual time=155.146..155.146 rows=24571 loops=1) -> Hash Join (cost=506.84..2010.69 rows=24571 width=4) (actual time=34.803..126.452 rows=24571 loops=1) Hash Cond: (r.event_id = e.event_id) -> Seq Scan on receipts r (cost=0.00..663.58 rows=29728 width=8) (actual time=0.006..30.870 rows=29728 loops=1) -> Hash (cost=469.73..469.73 rows=14843 width=4) (actual time=34.780..34.780 rows=14843 loops=1) -> Seq Scan on events e (cost=0.00..469.73 rows=14843 width=4) (actual time=0.007..17.603 rows=14843 loops=1) Total runtime: 816.645 ms select item_id from events e, receipts r, receipt_items ri where e.event_id=r.event_id and r.receipt_id=ri.receipt_id order by item_id desc limit 1 Limit (cost=0.00..0.16 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.047..0.048 rows=1 loops=1) -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..22131.43 rows=139019 width=4) (actual time=0.044..0.044 rows=1 loops=1) -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..12987.42 rows=168196 width=8) (actual time=0.032..0.032 rows=1 loops=1) -> Index Scan Backward using receipt_items_pkey on receipt_items ri (cost=0.00..6885.50 rows=168196 width=8) (actual time=0.016..0.016 rows=1 loops=1) -> Index Scan using receipts_pkey on receipts r (cost=0.00..0.02 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.010..0.010 rows=1 loops=1) Index Cond: (r.receipt_id = ri.receipt_id) -> Index Scan using events_pkey on events e (cost=0.00..0.04 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.009..0.009 rows=1 loops=1) Index Cond: (e.event_id = r.event_id) Total runtime: 0.112 ms -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-performance-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joshua D. Drake Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 9:10 PM To: Adam Rich Cc: 'Craig A. James'; 'Guy Rouillier'; 'PostgreSQL Performance' Subject: Re: [PERFORM] High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 20:26 -0600, Adam Rich wrote: > I'm using 8.2 and using order by & limit is still faster than MAX() > even though MAX() now seems to rewrite to an almost identical plan > internally. Gonna need you to back that up :) Can we get an explain analyze? > Count(*) still seems to use a full table scan rather than an index scan. > There is a TODO out there to help this. Don't know if it will get done. Joshua D. Drake -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
