Yes, the composite index nailed it.
Thanks mate :)
On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Marcio Ribeiro <mribeiro@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Short question:
> Why would pg optimizer choose a worst (slower) query plan for a
> query with 'LIMIT 1' instead of, say, 'LIMIT 3'?
> Complete scenario:
> Query: 'SELECT * FROM a WHERE a.b_id = 42 ORDER BY created LIMIT 1'
> - b_id is a FK to b;
> - created is a datetime with the time of the creation of the row;
> - both 'b' and 'created' are indexed separately
> This query, with the LIMIT 1, uses the index on created, which is much
> slower (10x) than if it used the index on b_id
It's trying to avoid a sort; or to be less anthropomorphic, the estimated
cost of scanning the "created" index until it hits the first row with
b_id=42 is less than the estimated cost of collecting all the rows with
b_id=42 and then sorting them by "created". The estimates unfortunately
are kind of shaky because it's hard to predict how many rows will get
skipped before finding one with b_id=42.
If you do this type of query often enough to care about its performance,
you could consider creating a two-column index on (b_id, created)
(in that order).
regards, tom lane
Marcio Ribeiro
