Why are you using such an old version of the driver ?
Either way the driver is going to use prepare statement to run this, that
is the difference from it an psql.
If you want to see the explain in psql you will need to do
prepare foo as <your query>
then explain execute foo;
FWIW upgrading the driver won't help this situation but there's still no
reason not to upgrade.
Dave Cramer
da...@postgresintl.com
www.postgresintl.com
On 28 September 2017 at 12:32, Subramaniam C <subramaniam31...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> The JDBC version is 9.4-1201-jdbc41.
>
> Query :-
>
> select count(*) OVER() AS count,uuid,availability,
> objectname,datasourcename,datasourcetype,objecttype,health from (select
> distinct on (health_timeseries_table.mobid) mobid,
> health_timeseries_table.health, health_timeseries_table.timestamp from
> health_timeseries_table where timestamp >= 1505989186834 and timestamp <=
> 1505990086834 ORDER BY health_timeseries_table.mobid DESC,
> health_timeseries_table.timestamp DESC, health_timeseries_table.health
> ASC) t right join (SELECT DISTINCT ON (object_table.uuid) uuid,
> object_table.timestamp,object_table.availability,object_
> table.objectname,object_table.datasourcename,object_table.
> datasourcetype,object_table.objecttype FROM object_table where
> object_table.timestamp >= 0 and object_table.timestamp <= 1505990086834 and
> object_table.tenantid = 'perspica' ORDER BY object_table.uuid DESC,
> object_table.timestamp DESC)u on (t.mobid = u.uuid) order by health asc
> limit 20 offset 0;
>
>
> Please let us know any other details?
>
>
> Thanks and Regards
>
> Subramaniam
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Dave Cramer <p...@fastcrypt.com> wrote:
>
>> What version of the driver are you using?
>>
>> The driver does not automatically use a cursor, but it does use prepared
>> statements which can be slower.
>>
>>
>> Can you provide the query and the jdbc query ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Dave Cramer
>>
>> da...@postgresintl.com
>> www.postgresintl.com
>>
>> On 28 September 2017 at 05:59, Subramaniam C <subramaniam31...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> First output show the output when the query is executed from sql command
>>> line. The second output show when it is executed from the application. AS
>>> per the output it is clear that the when the query is executed through JDBC
>>> its not using the index (health_index) instead its doing sequence scan.
>>> Please let us know how this issue can be resolved from JDBC?
>>>
>>> 1.)
>>>
>>>
>>> *Limit (cost=510711.53..510711.58 rows=20 width=72)*
>>>
>>> * -> Sort (cost=510711.53..511961.53 rows=500000 width=72)*
>>>
>>> * Sort Key: health_timeseries_table.health*
>>>
>>> * -> WindowAgg (cost=0.98..497406.71 rows=500000 width=72)*
>>>
>>> * -> Merge Left Join (cost=0.98..491156.71 rows=500000
>>> width=64)*
>>>
>>> * Merge Cond: (object_table.uuid =
>>> health_timeseries_table.mobid)*
>>>
>>> * -> Unique (cost=0.42..57977.00 rows=500000
>>> width=64)*
>>>
>>> * -> Index Scan Backward using
>>> object_table_pkey on object_table (cost=0.42..56727.00 rows=500000
>>> width=64)*
>>>
>>> * Index Cond: (("timestamp" >= 0) AND
>>> ("timestamp" <= '1505990086834'::bigint))*
>>>
>>> * Filter: (tenantid = 'perspica'::text)*
>>>
>>> * -> Materialize (cost=0.56..426235.64 rows=55526
>>> width=16)*
>>>
>>> * -> Unique (cost=0.56..425541.56 rows=55526
>>> width=24)*
>>>
>>> * -> Index Only Scan
>>> using health_index on health_timeseries_table (cost=0.56..421644.56
>>> rows=1558800 width=24)*
>>>
>>> * Index Cond: (("timestamp" >=
>>> '1505989186834'::bigint) AND ("timestamp" <= '1505990086834'::bigint))*
>>>
>>> *LOG: duration: 1971.697 ms*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Limit (cost=457629.21..457629.26 rows=20 width=72)
>>>
>>> -> Sort (cost=457629.21..458879.21 rows=500000 width=72)
>>>
>>> Sort Key: health_timeseries_table.health
>>>
>>> -> WindowAgg (cost=367431.49..444324.39 rows=500000 width=72)
>>>
>>> -> Merge Left Join (cost=367431.49..438074.39
>>> rows=500000 width=64)
>>>
>>> Merge Cond: (object_table.uuid =
>>> health_timeseries_table.mobid)
>>>
>>> -> Unique (cost=0.42..57977.00 rows=500000
>>> width=64)
>>>
>>> -> Index Scan Backward using
>>> object_table_pkey on object_table (cost=0.42..56727.00 rows=500000
>>> width=64)
>>>
>>> Index Cond: (("timestamp" >=
>>> '0'::bigint) AND ("timestamp" <= '1505990400000'::bigint))
>>>
>>> Filter: (tenantid = 'perspica'::text)
>>>
>>> -> Materialize (cost=367431.07..373153.32
>>> rows=55526 width=16)
>>>
>>> -> Unique (cost=367431.07..372459.24
>>> rows=55526 width=24)
>>>
>>> -> Sort (cost=367431.07..369945.16
>>> rows=1005634 width=24)
>>>
>>> Sort Key:
>>> health_timeseries_table.mobid DESC, health_timeseries_table."timestamp"
>>> DESC, health_timeseries_table.health
>>>
>>> -> Seq Scan on
>>> health_timeseries_table (cost=0.00..267171.00 rows=1005634 width=24)
>>>
>>>
>>> Filter: (("timestamp" >=
>>> '1505989500000'::bigint) AND ("timestamp" <= '1505990400000'::bigint))
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Pavy Philippe <
>>> philippe.p...@worldline.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/auto-explain.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>>> De : pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:
>>>> pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org] De la part de Julien Rouhaud
>>>> Envoyé : jeudi 28 septembre 2017 11:21
>>>> À : Subramaniam C
>>>> Cc : pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
>>>> Objet : Re: [PERFORM] Slow query in JDBC
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Subramaniam C <
>>>> subramaniam31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > I configured cursor_tuple_fraction to 1 but still I am facing the same
>>>> > issue.
>>>>
>>>> Can you show explain (analyze, buffers) of the query when run from psql
>>>> and run from application (you can use auto_explain for that if needed, see
>>>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/auto-explain.html).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.
>>>> org)
>>>> To make changes to your subscription:
>>>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>>>>
>>>> !!!*********************************************************
>>>> ****************************
>>>> "Ce message et les pièces jointes sont confidentiels et réservés à
>>>> l'usage exclusif de ses destinataires. Il peut également être protégé par
>>>> le secret professionnel. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, merci d'en
>>>> avertir immédiatement l'expéditeur et de le détruire. L'intégrité du
>>>> message ne pouvant être assurée sur Internet, la responsabilité de
>>>> Worldline ne pourra être recherchée quant au contenu de ce message. Bien
>>>> que les meilleurs efforts soient faits pour maintenir cette transmission
>>>> exempte de tout virus, l'expéditeur ne donne aucune garantie à cet égard et
>>>> sa responsabilité ne saurait être recherchée pour tout dommage résultant
>>>> d'un virus transmis.
>>>>
>>>> This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended
>>>> solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive this
>>>> e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. As
>>>> its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Worldline liability
>>>> cannot be triggered for the message content. Although the sender endeavours
>>>> to maintain a computer virus-free network, the sender does not warrant that
>>>> this transmission is virus-free and will not be liable for any damages
>>>> resulting from any virus transmitted.!!!"
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
