Bryce Nesbitt <bryce2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > The query plans are now attached (sorry I did not start there: many > lists reject attachments). Or you can click on "text" at the query > planner analysis site http://explain.depesz.com/s/qYq At least some of the problem is the terrible quality of the rowcount estimates in the IN subquery, as you extracted here: > Nested Loop (cost=0.00..23393.15 rows=23 width=4) (actual time=0.077..15.637 rows=4003 loops=1) > -> Index Scan using words_word on words (cost=0.00..5.47 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.049..0.051 rows=1 loops=1) > Index Cond: ((word)::text = 'insider'::text) > -> Index Scan using article_words_wc on article_words (cost=0.00..23234.38 rows=12264 width=8) (actual time=0.020..7.237 rows=4003 loops=1) > Index Cond: (article_words.word_key = words.word_key) > Total runtime: 19.776 ms Given that it estimated 1 row out of "words" (quite correctly) and 12264 rows out of each scan on article_words, you'd think that the join size estimate would be 12264, which would be off by "only" a factor of 3 from the true result. Instead it's 23, off by a factor of 200 :-(. Running a roughly similar test case here, I see that 8.4 gives significantly saner estimates, which I think is because of this patch: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2008-10/msg00191.php At the time I didn't want to risk back-patching it, because there were a lot of other changes in the same general area in 8.4. But it would be interesting to see what happens with your example if you patch 8.3 similarly. (Note: I think only the first diff hunk is relevant to 8.3.) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
