Arjun Ranade <ranade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I have a strange performance situation that I cannot resolve with my usual > process. > I have a SELECT statement that completes in about 12 seconds for the full > result (~1100 rows). > If I create an empty table first, and then INSERT with the SELECT query, it > takes 6.5 minutes. > When I look at the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output, it seems that it's using a > drastically different query plan for the INSERT+SELECT than SELECT by > itself. The reason for the plan shape difference is probably that the bare SELECT is allowed to use parallelism while INSERT/SELECT isn't. I'm not sure to what extent we could relax that without creating semantic gotchas. However, your real problem with either query is that the planner's rowcount estimates are off by several orders of magnitude. If you could improve that, you'd likely get better plan choices in both cases. I also notice that this seems to be a 14-way join, which means you're probably getting an artificially poor plan as a result of from_collapse_limit and/or join_collapse_limit constraining the planner's search space. Maybe raising those limits would help, although I'm not sure how much it'd help if the rowcount estimates aren't improved. Since you haven't told us much of anything about the actual query or the data, it's hard to offer concrete advice beyond that. regards, tom lane
