Thanx for the advice, but increment table is not acceptable because it should
be a plenty of them.
Nevertheless in the investigations was achieved some progress (7.4 sec vs 19.6
sec).
But using IOS scan you can see that there is an abnormal cost calculations it
make me suspicious of little bugs.
Thanks for your answer.
hashes=# \d hashcheck;
Table "public.hashcheck"
Column | Type | Modifiers
--------+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------------
id | integer | not null default
nextval('hashcheck_id_seq'::regclass)
name | character varying |
value | character varying |
Indexes:
"hashcheck_name_idx" btree (name)
hashes=# vacuum hashcheck;
VACUUM
hashes=# set random_page_cost=0.1;
SET
hashes=# set seq_page_cost=0.1;
SET
hashes=# explain analyse verbose select name, count(name) as cnt from
hashcheck group by name order by name desc;
QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sort (cost=407366.72..407367.22 rows=200 width=32) (actual
time=10712.505..10712.765 rows=4001 loops=1)
Output: name, (count(name))
Sort Key: hashcheck.name
Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 315kB
-> HashAggregate (cost=407357.08..407359.08 rows=200 width=32) (actual
time=10702.285..10703.054 rows=4001 loops=1)
Output: name, count(name)
-> Seq Scan on public.hashcheck (cost=0.00..277423.12 rows=25986792
width=32) (actual time=0.054..2877.100 rows=25990002 loops=1)
Output: id, name, value
Total runtime: 10712.989 ms
(9 rows)
hashes=# set enable_seqscan = off;
SET
hashes=# explain analyse verbose select name, count(name) as cnt from
hashcheck group by name order by name desc;
QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GroupAggregate (cost=10000000000.00..10000528610.88 rows=200 width=32)
(actual time=0.116..7452.005 rows=4001 loops=1)
Output: name, count(name)
-> Index Only Scan Backward using hashcheck_name_idx on public.hashcheck
(cost=10000000000.00..10000398674.92 rows=25986792 width=32)
(actual time=0.104..3785.767 rows=25990002 loops=1)
Output: name
Heap Fetches: 0
Total runtime: 7452.509 ms
(6 rows)
Благодаря шаманствам на:
http://www.sql.ru/forum/actualthread.aspx?tid=974484
11.10.2012, 01:30, "Sergey Konoplev" <[email protected]>:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Korisk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hello! Is it possible to speed up the plan?
>> Sort (cost=573977.88..573978.38 rows=200 width=32) (actual
>> time=10351.280..10351.551 rows=4000 loops=1)
>> Output: name, (count(name))
>> Sort Key: hashcheck.name
>> Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 315kB
>> -> HashAggregate (cost=573968.24..573970.24 rows=200 width=32) (actual
>> time=10340.507..10341.288 rows=4000 loops=1)
>> Output: name, count(name)
>> -> Seq Scan on public.hashcheck (cost=0.00..447669.16
>> rows=25259816 width=32) (actual time=0.019..2798.058 rows=25259817 loops=1)
>> Output: id, name, value
>> Total runtime: 10351.989 ms
>
> AFAIU there are no query optimization solution for this.
>
> It may be worth to create a table hashcheck_stat (name, cnt) and
> increment/decrement the cnt values with triggers if you need to get
> counts fast.
>
> --
> Sergey Konoplev
>
> a database and software architect
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/grayhemp
>
> Jabber: [email protected] Skype: gray-hemp Phone: +14158679984
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
