Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 2:35 AM, AI Rumman <rummandba@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Please have a look at the following explain plan:
>> Hash Join (cost=3665.17..40019.25 rows=640439 width=1603) (actual
>> time=115.613..3288.436 rows=638081 loops=1)
>> Hash Cond: ("outer".smownerid = "inner".id)
>> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on vtiger_crmentity (cost=3646.54..30394.02
>> rows=640439 width=258) (actual time=114.763..986.504 rows=638318 loops=1)
>> Recheck Cond: (deleted = 0)
>> -> Bitmap Index Scan on vtiger_crmentity_deleted_idx
>> (cost=0.00..3646.54 rows=640439 width=0) (actual time=107.851..107.851
>> rows=638318 loops=1)
>> Index Cond: (deleted = 0)
>> -> Hash (cost=18.11..18.11 rows=211 width=1345) (actual
>> time=0.823..0.823 rows=211 loops=1)
>> -> Seq Scan on vtiger_users (cost=0.00..18.11 rows=211
>> width=1345) (actual time=0.005..0.496 rows=211 loops=1)
>> Total runtime: 3869.022 ms
>>
>> Sequential index is occuring on vtiger_users table while it has primary key
>> index on id.
> Cause it's only 211 rows and only takes 0.5 milliseconds to scan?
Or, even more to the point, because a nestloop-with-inner-index-scan
plan would require 638318 repetitions of the inner index scan. There's
no way that is going to be a better plan than this one. Given the
rowcounts --- in particular, the fact that each vtiger_users row seems
to have a lot of join partners --- I don't think there *is* any better
plan than this one. A nestloop with vtiger_crmentity on the inside
is the only alternative worth considering, and it doesn't look like
that could be any cheaper.
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
