> On Aug 19, 2020, at 6:24 PM, David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 09:55, Philip Semanchuk
> <phi...@americanefficient.com> wrote:
>> I could use some help interpreting EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
>>
>> -> Index Scan using ix_foo on t1 (cost=0.69..68.57 rows=3283 width=105)
>> (actual time=0.006..0.918 rows=3760 loops=94)
>>
>> The actual rows returned by this plan node ~= 3760 * 94 = 353,440.
>
> Yes. It's total rows / loops rounded to the nearest integer number.
>
>> Did postgres expect (estimate) 3283 rows from this join, or 3283 * 94 =
>> 308,602?
>
> Yes, that's the case at least when the node is not a Parallel node.
> If this index scan was part of a parameterized nested loop, then
> you'll see the estimate of the number of expected loops from the outer
> side of the join.
Thanks, I was wondering where the 94 came from.
> Same question for this node.
>>
>> -> Parallel Index Scan using pk_xyz on xyz (cost=0.29..2354.67 rows=54285
>> width=25) (actual time=0.049..6.326 rows=14864 loops=5)
>>
>> Actual rows ~= 14864 * 5 = 74,320, estimate = 54285 or 54285 * 5?
>
> So parallel plans are a bit more complex. The row estimates are the
> total estimated rows / the amount of workers we expect to do useful
> work. You might expect the divisor there to be an integer number
> since you can't really have 0.5 workers. However, it's more complex
> than that since the leader has other tasks to take care of such as
> pulling tuples from workers, it's not dedicated to helping out.
Sounds like it help to set max_parallel_workers = 1 before running EXPLAIN
ANALYZE in order to simplify the numbers, yes? Or is there a possibility that
doing so would send the planner down an entirely different path?
>
> If you're into reading C code, then there's more information in
> https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/src/backend/optimizer/path/costsize.c#L5699
> , if you hunt around for usages of that function then you'll see the
> estimated row counts are divided by the return value of that function.
Yes, I’ve spent some time reading that file and its relatives. It’s been
helpful.
Much appreciated
Philip
