"Naik, Sameer" <Sameer_Naik@xxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 09:37:34PM +0000, Deepak Somaiya wrote: >> wow this is interesting! >> @Tom, Bruce, David - Experts >> Any idea why would changing the datatype would cause so much degradation - this is even when plan remains the same ,data is same. I see nothing very exciting here. text equality comparison reduces to a memcmp, while citext equality comparison is quite expensive, since it has to case-fold both inputs before it can memcmp them. For the given test case: > ' -> Index Scan using i776_0_400129200_t776 on t776 (cost=0.42..12.66 rows=1 width=52) (actual time=1187.686..5531.421 rows=48 loops=1)' > ' Index Cond: ((c400129200 = $1) AND (c400127400 = $2))' > ' Filter: (((c400129100 <> $3) OR (c400129100 IS NULL)) AND ((c179 = $4) OR (c179 = $5) OR (c179 = $6) OR (c179 = $7) OR (c179 = $8) OR (c179 = $9) OR (c179 = $10) OR (c179 = $11) OR (c179 = $12) OR (c179 = $13) OR (c179 = $14) OR (c179 = $15) OR (c179 = $16) OR (c179 = $17) OR (c179 = $18) OR (c179 = $19) OR (c179 = $20) OR (c179 = $21) OR (c179 = $22) OR (c179 = $23) OR (c179 = $24) OR (c179 = $25) OR (c179 = $26) OR (c179 = $27) OR (c179 = $28) OR (c179 = $29) OR (c179 = $30) OR (c179 = $31) OR (c179 = $32) OR (c179 = $33) OR (c179 = $34) OR (c179 = $35) OR (c179 = $36) OR (c179 = $37) OR (c179 = $38) OR (c179 = $39) OR (c179 = $40) OR (c179 = $41) OR (c179 = $42) OR (c179 = $43) OR (c179 = $44) OR (c179 = $45) OR (c179 = $46) OR (c179 = $47) OR (c179 = $48) OR (c179 = $49) OR (c179 = $50) OR (c179 = $51)))' > ' Rows Removed by Filter: 55322' it's reasonable to suppose that not many of the rows are failing the c400129100 conditions, so that in order to decide that a row doesn't pass the filter, we are forced to perform each of the OR'd c179 comparisons. So this query did something like 48 * 55322 equality comparisons for c179. If the cost of a citexteq evaluation is around 2 microseconds, that'd fully explain the runtime differential. The OP didn't say what locale or encoding he's using. Maybe switching to some other settings would improve matters ... though if non-ASCII case folding is a business requirement, that likely won't go far. Or you could get rid of the need for the repetitive case-folding, say by storing lower(c179) in a separate column and doing plain text comparisons to pre-lowercased input values. regards, tom lane
