On Dec 14, 2012, at 2:36 AM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote:
>
> On 12/13/2012 05:12 PM, AI Rumman wrote:
>> Why does the number of rows are different in actual and estimated?
>>
>
>
> Isn't that in the nature of estimates? An estimate is a heuristic guess at
> the number of rows it will find for the given query or part of a query. It's
> not uncommon for estimates to be out by several orders of magnitude.
> Guaranteeing estimates within bounded accuracy and in a given short amount of
> time (you don't want your planning time to overwhelm your execution time)
> isn't possible.
>
The main question i think is what to do with it.
The problem starts here
-> Hash Join (cost=9337.97..18115.71 rows=34489 width=244) (actual
time=418.054..1156.453 rows=205420 loops=1)
Hash Cond:
(customerdetails.customerid = entity.id)
-> Seq Scan on customerdetails
(cost=0.00..4752.46 rows=327146 width=13) (actual time=0.021..176.389
rows=327328 loops=1)
-> Hash (cost=6495.65..6495.65
rows=227386 width=231) (actual time=417.839..417.839 rows=205420 loops=1)
Buckets: 32768 Batches: 1
Memory Usage: 16056kB
-> Index Scan using
entity_setype_idx on entity (cost=0.00..6495.65 rows=227386 width=231) (actual
time=0.033..2
53.880 rows=205420 loops=1)
Index Cond:
((setype)::text = 'con_s'::text)
-> Index Scan using con_address_pkey on con_address
(cost=0.00..0.27 rows=1 width=46) (actual time=0.003..0.004 rows=1 loops=2054
20)
As you see access methods estimates are ok, it is join result set which is
wrong.
How to deal with it?
May be a hack with CTE can help, but is there a way to improve statistics
correlation?
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
