Hi,
I'm surprised at the difference in speed/execution plan between two logically equivalent queries, one using IN, the other using EXISTS. (At least I think they are logically equivalent)
I've created a small setup that illustrates what I mean.
Consider the following tables:
CREATE TABLE foo
(
id integer NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT foo_pkey PRIMARY KEY (id )
)
CREATE TABLE bar
(
foo_ref integer,
value character varying,
id integer NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT bar_pkey PRIMARY KEY (id ),
CONSTRAINT bar_foo_ref_fkey FOREIGN KEY (foo_ref)
REFERENCES foo (id) MATCH SIMPLE
ON UPDATE NO ACTION ON DELETE NO ACTION
)
The following two queries have very different query plans:
SELECT *
FROM foo
WHERE 'text6' IN (SELECT value
FROM bar
JOIN foo AS foo2
ON bar.foo_ref = foo2.id
WHERE foo2.id = foo.id)
and
SELECT *
FROM foo
WHERE EXISTS(SELECT 0
FROM bar
JOIN foo AS foo2
ON bar.foo_ref = foo2.id
WHERE foo2.id = foo.id
AND bar.value = 'text6')
Whereas the second one uses the indexes to look up the matching bar rows, the first one performs a full table scan on bar.
Given that both queries are logically equivalent, I'm wondering why this optimization isn't made. Is there information missing for the optimizer to make the better decision? Are these queries not equivalent perhaps?
An EXPLAIN ANALYZE on the two queries on filled and analyzed tables highlighting the difference:
EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM foo WHERE 'text6' IN (SELECT value FROM bar JOIN foo AS foo2 ON bar.foo_ref = foo2.id WHERE foo2.id = foo.id)
"Seq Scan on foo (cost=0.00..3316934.60 rows=5000 width=4) (actual time=6.416..10803.056 rows=1 loops=1)"
" Filter: (SubPlan 1)"
" SubPlan 1"
" -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..663.29 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.667..1.079 rows=1 loops=10000)"
" -> Seq Scan on bar (cost=0.00..655.00 rows=1 width=12) (actual time=0.660..1.072 rows=1 loops=10000)"
" Filter: (foo_ref = foo.id)"
" -> Index Scan using foo_pkey on foo foo2 (cost=0.00..8.28 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.002..0.003 rows=1 loops=10000)"
" Index Cond: (id = foo.id)"
"Total runtime: 10803.088 ms"
EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM foo WHERE EXISTS(SELECT 0 FROM bar JOIN foo AS foo2 ON bar.foo_ref = foo2.id WHERE foo2.id = foo.id AND bar.value = 'text6')
"Nested Loop (cost=16.58..24.88 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.032..0.032 rows=1 loops=1)"
" -> HashAggregate (cost=16.58..16.59 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.029..0.029 rows=1 loops=1)"
" -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..16.58 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.025..0.025 rows=1 loops=1)"
" -> Index Scan using bar_value_idx on bar (cost=0.00..8.29 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.019..0.020 rows=1 loops=1)"
" Index Cond: ((value)::text = 'text6'::text)"
" -> Index Scan using foo_pkey on foo foo2 (cost=0.00..8.28 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.002..0.003 rows=1 loops=1)"
" Index Cond: (id = bar.foo_ref)"
" -> Index Scan using foo_pkey on foo (cost=0.00..8.28 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.001..0.002 rows=1 loops=1)"
" Index Cond: (id = bar.foo_ref)"
"Total runtime: 0.064 ms"
Hoping someone sheds some light on this and restores my confidence in the optimizer,
Nick Hofstede
PS: I know the EXIST can also be rewritten to a JOIN
SELECT foo.id
FROM foo
JOIN bar
ON bar.foo_ref = foo.id
JOIN foo AS foo2
ON bar.foo_ref = foo2.id
WHERE foo2.id = foo.id
AND bar.value = 'text6'
and ultimately to (thanks to foo2.id = foo.id)
SELECT foo.id
FROM foo
JOIN bar
ON bar.foo_ref = foo.id
WHERE bar.value = 'text6'
.. all of wich have an execution plan and performance similar to the EXISTS query.
What I'm concerned about is that the first step from IN to EXISTS isn't made (which also precludes all following optimization steps)
________________________________
Inventive Designers' Email Disclaimer:
http://www.inventivedesigners.com/email-disclaimer
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
