Jorge Arevalo <jorgearevalo@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> This is the result of EXPLAIN ANALYZE
> QUERY
> PLAN
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Index Scan using table1_pkey on table1 (cost=67846.38..395773.45
> rows=8419127 width=88) (actual time=7122.704..22670.680 rows=8419127
> loops=1)
> InitPlan 2 (returns $1)
> -> Result (cost=67846.29..67846.29 rows=1 width=0) (actual
> time=7009.063..7009.065 rows=1 loops=1)
> InitPlan 1 (returns $0)
> -> Seq Scan on table2 p (cost=0.00..67846.29 rows=12689
> width=20) (actual time=14.971..5069.840 rows=2537787 loops=1)
> Filter: (f3 = field7)
Hm. If I'm reading that right, you're building an array containing
2537787 entries, each of which is a composite datum containing two
columns of unmentioned datatypes. I suspect a big chunk of your
runtime is going into manipulating that array -- PG is not terribly
efficient with big arrays containing variable-width values.
I'm also a bit confused as to why the planner is saying that the (SELECT
ARRAY(...)) bit is an InitPlan and not a SubPlan. That implies that
"field7" in the innermost WHERE clause is not a reference to table1 but a
reference to table2. Is that really what you meant? IOW, are you sure
this query is performing the right calculation in the first place?
I thought the InitPlan was in place because the planner choose to execute the correlated subquery as a standalone query since it realizes that it is going to have to end up processing the entire table anyway due to the lack of a filter on the outer query. In effect executing "table1 JOIN (table2 subquery) ON (f3 = field7)".
David J.
