PostgreSQL doesn't generate index-only plan when using NOT-IN but does when using IN with multicolumn...












0















I have two tables: A(id, x, cid) and B(cid). I need to fetch some records from A and excluding records with same cid in B.



I have btree index on A (cid, id).



Query-1 (NOT-IN): select id from a where cid not in (select distinct cid from b);



Plan:



Seq Scan on a  (cost=20418.20..340328.83 rows=5128145 width=8) (actual time=367.337..3820.175 rows=169046 loops=1)
Filter: (NOT (hashed SubPlan 1))
Rows Removed by Filter: 10087249
SubPlan 1
-> HashAggregate (cost=20283.84..20391.33 rows=10749 width=4) (actual time=351.301..357.395 rows=41493 loops=1)
Group Key: b.cid
-> Seq Scan on b (cost=0.00..17451.87 rows=1132787 width=4) (actual time=0.530..148.063 rows=1132787 loops=1)
Planning time: 0.254 ms
Execution time: 3827.324 ms


It does NOT generate a index-only-scan which I think should be reasonable since index btree on A(cid, id) is a covering index.



However, if I use IN operator instead, it can generate index-only-scan, shown as following:



Query-2 (IN): select id from a where cid in (select distinct cid from b);



Plan:



Nested Loop  (cost=20284.27..420607.83 rows=10256290 width=8) (actual time=290.225..2349.182 rows=10087249 loops=1)
-> HashAggregate (cost=20283.84..20391.33 rows=10749 width=4) (actual time=290.162..304.054 rows=41493 loops=1)
Group Key: b.cid
-> Seq Scan on b (cost=0.00..17451.87 rows=1132787 width=4) (actual time=0.042..95.151 rows=1132787 loops=1)
-> Index Only Scan using idx_a_cid_id on a (cost=0.43..27.61 rows=961 width=12) (actual time=0.005..0.028 rows=243 loops=41493)
Index Cond: (cid = b.cid)
Heap Fetches: 0
Planning time: 0.197 ms
Execution time: 2672.898 ms


If you may consider because the cardinalities of A and B are too different, that's true. A contains 10256295 rows while B contains 41493 distinct cids.



However, if I manually rewrite the Query-1 to the following Query-3 with the same logic, but just using IN, postgres can still generate a index-only-scan, shown as following:



Query-3 (IN-sub(NOT-IN)): select id from a where cid in (select cid from a where cid not in (select distinct cid from b));



Plan:



Nested Loop  (cost=325220.51..722952.01 rows=10256290 width=8) (actual time=3741.854..5607.756 rows=169046 loops=1)
-> HashAggregate (cost=325220.07..325326.82 rows=10675 width=4) (actual time=3741.133..3763.512 rows=51758 loops=1)
Group Key: a_1.cid
-> Index Only Scan using idx_a_cid on a a_1 (cost=20418.64..312399.71 rows=5128145 width=4) (actual time=377.384..3691.304 rows=169046 loops=1)
Filter: (NOT (hashed SubPlan 1))
Rows Removed by Filter: 10087249
Heap Fetches: 0
SubPlan 1
-> HashAggregate (cost=20283.84..20391.33 rows=10749 width=4) (actual time=359.015..365.864 rows=41493 loops=1)
Group Key: b.cid
-> Seq Scan on b (cost=0.00..17451.87 rows=1132787 width=4) (actual time=0.455..144.879 rows=1132787 loops=1)
-> Index Only Scan using idx_a_cid_id on a (cost=0.43..27.64 rows=961 width=12) (actual time=0.033..0.035 rows=3 loops=51758)
Index Cond: (cid = a_1.cid)
Heap Fetches: 0
Planning time: 2.758 ms
Execution time: 5617.930 ms


So I'm very confused now, whether it's because NOT-IN operator itself is too hard/expensive to use index-only-scan? Or just because PostgreSQL's Query Optimizer is not smart enough to generate one?



BTW, my experiments are on PostgreSQL-9.6.



Thank you!










share|improve this question







New contributor




Qiushi Bai is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

























    0















    I have two tables: A(id, x, cid) and B(cid). I need to fetch some records from A and excluding records with same cid in B.



    I have btree index on A (cid, id).



    Query-1 (NOT-IN): select id from a where cid not in (select distinct cid from b);



    Plan:



    Seq Scan on a  (cost=20418.20..340328.83 rows=5128145 width=8) (actual time=367.337..3820.175 rows=169046 loops=1)
    Filter: (NOT (hashed SubPlan 1))
    Rows Removed by Filter: 10087249
    SubPlan 1
    -> HashAggregate (cost=20283.84..20391.33 rows=10749 width=4) (actual time=351.301..357.395 rows=41493 loops=1)
    Group Key: b.cid
    -> Seq Scan on b (cost=0.00..17451.87 rows=1132787 width=4) (actual time=0.530..148.063 rows=1132787 loops=1)
    Planning time: 0.254 ms
    Execution time: 3827.324 ms


    It does NOT generate a index-only-scan which I think should be reasonable since index btree on A(cid, id) is a covering index.



    However, if I use IN operator instead, it can generate index-only-scan, shown as following:



    Query-2 (IN): select id from a where cid in (select distinct cid from b);



    Plan:



    Nested Loop  (cost=20284.27..420607.83 rows=10256290 width=8) (actual time=290.225..2349.182 rows=10087249 loops=1)
    -> HashAggregate (cost=20283.84..20391.33 rows=10749 width=4) (actual time=290.162..304.054 rows=41493 loops=1)
    Group Key: b.cid
    -> Seq Scan on b (cost=0.00..17451.87 rows=1132787 width=4) (actual time=0.042..95.151 rows=1132787 loops=1)
    -> Index Only Scan using idx_a_cid_id on a (cost=0.43..27.61 rows=961 width=12) (actual time=0.005..0.028 rows=243 loops=41493)
    Index Cond: (cid = b.cid)
    Heap Fetches: 0
    Planning time: 0.197 ms
    Execution time: 2672.898 ms


    If you may consider because the cardinalities of A and B are too different, that's true. A contains 10256295 rows while B contains 41493 distinct cids.



    However, if I manually rewrite the Query-1 to the following Query-3 with the same logic, but just using IN, postgres can still generate a index-only-scan, shown as following:



    Query-3 (IN-sub(NOT-IN)): select id from a where cid in (select cid from a where cid not in (select distinct cid from b));



    Plan:



    Nested Loop  (cost=325220.51..722952.01 rows=10256290 width=8) (actual time=3741.854..5607.756 rows=169046 loops=1)
    -> HashAggregate (cost=325220.07..325326.82 rows=10675 width=4) (actual time=3741.133..3763.512 rows=51758 loops=1)
    Group Key: a_1.cid
    -> Index Only Scan using idx_a_cid on a a_1 (cost=20418.64..312399.71 rows=5128145 width=4) (actual time=377.384..3691.304 rows=169046 loops=1)
    Filter: (NOT (hashed SubPlan 1))
    Rows Removed by Filter: 10087249
    Heap Fetches: 0
    SubPlan 1
    -> HashAggregate (cost=20283.84..20391.33 rows=10749 width=4) (actual time=359.015..365.864 rows=41493 loops=1)
    Group Key: b.cid
    -> Seq Scan on b (cost=0.00..17451.87 rows=1132787 width=4) (actual time=0.455..144.879 rows=1132787 loops=1)
    -> Index Only Scan using idx_a_cid_id on a (cost=0.43..27.64 rows=961 width=12) (actual time=0.033..0.035 rows=3 loops=51758)
    Index Cond: (cid = a_1.cid)
    Heap Fetches: 0
    Planning time: 2.758 ms
    Execution time: 5617.930 ms


    So I'm very confused now, whether it's because NOT-IN operator itself is too hard/expensive to use index-only-scan? Or just because PostgreSQL's Query Optimizer is not smart enough to generate one?



    BTW, my experiments are on PostgreSQL-9.6.



    Thank you!










    share|improve this question







    New contributor




    Qiushi Bai is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.























      0












      0








      0








      I have two tables: A(id, x, cid) and B(cid). I need to fetch some records from A and excluding records with same cid in B.



      I have btree index on A (cid, id).



      Query-1 (NOT-IN): select id from a where cid not in (select distinct cid from b);



      Plan:



      Seq Scan on a  (cost=20418.20..340328.83 rows=5128145 width=8) (actual time=367.337..3820.175 rows=169046 loops=1)
      Filter: (NOT (hashed SubPlan 1))
      Rows Removed by Filter: 10087249
      SubPlan 1
      -> HashAggregate (cost=20283.84..20391.33 rows=10749 width=4) (actual time=351.301..357.395 rows=41493 loops=1)
      Group Key: b.cid
      -> Seq Scan on b (cost=0.00..17451.87 rows=1132787 width=4) (actual time=0.530..148.063 rows=1132787 loops=1)
      Planning time: 0.254 ms
      Execution time: 3827.324 ms


      It does NOT generate a index-only-scan which I think should be reasonable since index btree on A(cid, id) is a covering index.



      However, if I use IN operator instead, it can generate index-only-scan, shown as following:



      Query-2 (IN): select id from a where cid in (select distinct cid from b);



      Plan:



      Nested Loop  (cost=20284.27..420607.83 rows=10256290 width=8) (actual time=290.225..2349.182 rows=10087249 loops=1)
      -> HashAggregate (cost=20283.84..20391.33 rows=10749 width=4) (actual time=290.162..304.054 rows=41493 loops=1)
      Group Key: b.cid
      -> Seq Scan on b (cost=0.00..17451.87 rows=1132787 width=4) (actual time=0.042..95.151 rows=1132787 loops=1)
      -> Index Only Scan using idx_a_cid_id on a (cost=0.43..27.61 rows=961 width=12) (actual time=0.005..0.028 rows=243 loops=41493)
      Index Cond: (cid = b.cid)
      Heap Fetches: 0
      Planning time: 0.197 ms
      Execution time: 2672.898 ms


      If you may consider because the cardinalities of A and B are too different, that's true. A contains 10256295 rows while B contains 41493 distinct cids.



      However, if I manually rewrite the Query-1 to the following Query-3 with the same logic, but just using IN, postgres can still generate a index-only-scan, shown as following:



      Query-3 (IN-sub(NOT-IN)): select id from a where cid in (select cid from a where cid not in (select distinct cid from b));



      Plan:



      Nested Loop  (cost=325220.51..722952.01 rows=10256290 width=8) (actual time=3741.854..5607.756 rows=169046 loops=1)
      -> HashAggregate (cost=325220.07..325326.82 rows=10675 width=4) (actual time=3741.133..3763.512 rows=51758 loops=1)
      Group Key: a_1.cid
      -> Index Only Scan using idx_a_cid on a a_1 (cost=20418.64..312399.71 rows=5128145 width=4) (actual time=377.384..3691.304 rows=169046 loops=1)
      Filter: (NOT (hashed SubPlan 1))
      Rows Removed by Filter: 10087249
      Heap Fetches: 0
      SubPlan 1
      -> HashAggregate (cost=20283.84..20391.33 rows=10749 width=4) (actual time=359.015..365.864 rows=41493 loops=1)
      Group Key: b.cid
      -> Seq Scan on b (cost=0.00..17451.87 rows=1132787 width=4) (actual time=0.455..144.879 rows=1132787 loops=1)
      -> Index Only Scan using idx_a_cid_id on a (cost=0.43..27.64 rows=961 width=12) (actual time=0.033..0.035 rows=3 loops=51758)
      Index Cond: (cid = a_1.cid)
      Heap Fetches: 0
      Planning time: 2.758 ms
      Execution time: 5617.930 ms


      So I'm very confused now, whether it's because NOT-IN operator itself is too hard/expensive to use index-only-scan? Or just because PostgreSQL's Query Optimizer is not smart enough to generate one?



      BTW, my experiments are on PostgreSQL-9.6.



      Thank you!










      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      Qiushi Bai is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.












      I have two tables: A(id, x, cid) and B(cid). I need to fetch some records from A and excluding records with same cid in B.



      I have btree index on A (cid, id).



      Query-1 (NOT-IN): select id from a where cid not in (select distinct cid from b);



      Plan:



      Seq Scan on a  (cost=20418.20..340328.83 rows=5128145 width=8) (actual time=367.337..3820.175 rows=169046 loops=1)
      Filter: (NOT (hashed SubPlan 1))
      Rows Removed by Filter: 10087249
      SubPlan 1
      -> HashAggregate (cost=20283.84..20391.33 rows=10749 width=4) (actual time=351.301..357.395 rows=41493 loops=1)
      Group Key: b.cid
      -> Seq Scan on b (cost=0.00..17451.87 rows=1132787 width=4) (actual time=0.530..148.063 rows=1132787 loops=1)
      Planning time: 0.254 ms
      Execution time: 3827.324 ms


      It does NOT generate a index-only-scan which I think should be reasonable since index btree on A(cid, id) is a covering index.



      However, if I use IN operator instead, it can generate index-only-scan, shown as following:



      Query-2 (IN): select id from a where cid in (select distinct cid from b);



      Plan:



      Nested Loop  (cost=20284.27..420607.83 rows=10256290 width=8) (actual time=290.225..2349.182 rows=10087249 loops=1)
      -> HashAggregate (cost=20283.84..20391.33 rows=10749 width=4) (actual time=290.162..304.054 rows=41493 loops=1)
      Group Key: b.cid
      -> Seq Scan on b (cost=0.00..17451.87 rows=1132787 width=4) (actual time=0.042..95.151 rows=1132787 loops=1)
      -> Index Only Scan using idx_a_cid_id on a (cost=0.43..27.61 rows=961 width=12) (actual time=0.005..0.028 rows=243 loops=41493)
      Index Cond: (cid = b.cid)
      Heap Fetches: 0
      Planning time: 0.197 ms
      Execution time: 2672.898 ms


      If you may consider because the cardinalities of A and B are too different, that's true. A contains 10256295 rows while B contains 41493 distinct cids.



      However, if I manually rewrite the Query-1 to the following Query-3 with the same logic, but just using IN, postgres can still generate a index-only-scan, shown as following:



      Query-3 (IN-sub(NOT-IN)): select id from a where cid in (select cid from a where cid not in (select distinct cid from b));



      Plan:



      Nested Loop  (cost=325220.51..722952.01 rows=10256290 width=8) (actual time=3741.854..5607.756 rows=169046 loops=1)
      -> HashAggregate (cost=325220.07..325326.82 rows=10675 width=4) (actual time=3741.133..3763.512 rows=51758 loops=1)
      Group Key: a_1.cid
      -> Index Only Scan using idx_a_cid on a a_1 (cost=20418.64..312399.71 rows=5128145 width=4) (actual time=377.384..3691.304 rows=169046 loops=1)
      Filter: (NOT (hashed SubPlan 1))
      Rows Removed by Filter: 10087249
      Heap Fetches: 0
      SubPlan 1
      -> HashAggregate (cost=20283.84..20391.33 rows=10749 width=4) (actual time=359.015..365.864 rows=41493 loops=1)
      Group Key: b.cid
      -> Seq Scan on b (cost=0.00..17451.87 rows=1132787 width=4) (actual time=0.455..144.879 rows=1132787 loops=1)
      -> Index Only Scan using idx_a_cid_id on a (cost=0.43..27.64 rows=961 width=12) (actual time=0.033..0.035 rows=3 loops=51758)
      Index Cond: (cid = a_1.cid)
      Heap Fetches: 0
      Planning time: 2.758 ms
      Execution time: 5617.930 ms


      So I'm very confused now, whether it's because NOT-IN operator itself is too hard/expensive to use index-only-scan? Or just because PostgreSQL's Query Optimizer is not smart enough to generate one?



      BTW, my experiments are on PostgreSQL-9.6.



      Thank you!







      postgresql postgresql-performance postgresql-9.6






      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      Qiushi Bai is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      Qiushi Bai is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question






      New contributor




      Qiushi Bai is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 10 mins ago









      Qiushi BaiQiushi Bai

      1




      1




      New contributor




      Qiushi Bai is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Qiushi Bai is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Qiushi Bai is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          0






          active

          oldest

          votes











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "182"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });






          Qiushi Bai is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f233329%2fpostgresql-doesnt-generate-index-only-plan-when-using-not-in-but-does-when-usin%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          0






          active

          oldest

          votes








          0






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          Qiushi Bai is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          Qiushi Bai is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













          Qiushi Bai is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












          Qiushi Bai is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















          Thanks for contributing an answer to Database Administrators Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f233329%2fpostgresql-doesnt-generate-index-only-plan-when-using-not-in-but-does-when-usin%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Liste der Baudenkmale in Friedland (Mecklenburg)

          Single-Malt-Whisky

          Czorneboh