Re: [GENERAL] Select query ignores index on large table

2011-01-28 Thread Michael Kemanetzis
Thanks, it did help. Now queries run in zero time.
I had thought of doing thatbut since the same configuration was working
ok on MSSQL I thought it should also here.
Now with that index the server query times are a lot faster than MSSQL
without it.

Since it is working I will leave it like that. At least till I know more on
how postgre behaves (and databases in general) with indexes.

Thanks again!

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:12 PM, hubert depesz lubaczewski 
dep...@depesz.com wrote:

 On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 04:04:02PM +0200, Michael Kemanetzis wrote:
  Hello, I'm experiencing a strange behavior running a simple select query
 on
  a table that has about 12 million rows. Specifically, changing the
 LIMIT
  value seems to change the execution plan but the result in one of the
 cases
  is unjustifiably slow, as if it ignores all indexes.
 
  The table structure, the queries used and the results are here:
  http://pastebin.com/fn36BuKs
 
  Is there anything I can do to improve the speed of this query?

 create index qq on vehicleevent (veh_id, event_id)
 could help.

 Best regards,

 depesz

 --
 Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/depesz  /  blog:
 http://www.depesz.com/
 jid/gtalk http://www.depesz.com/%0Ajid/gtalk: dep...@depesz.com /
 aim:depeszhdl / skype:depesz_hdl / gg:6749007



Re: [GENERAL] Select query ignores index on large table

2011-01-28 Thread Michael Kemanetzis
I am answering just for the sake of answering your questions.
What hubert depesz lubaczewski suggested  had fixed the problem i had.


I have other queries that need event_id to be the clustered index
Veh_id is spread all over the table. (for veh_id 3 there are no records)
Due to the spread of records all over the table the second plan that scans
the whole table to get enough records takes ages.
A planner should probably predict this (the fragmentation of veh_id) and
mostly consider the second solution.
Maybe it does that..who knows...all I know is my problem is fixed with the
second two field index.

Thank you for your effort to help.

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Alban Hertroys 
dal...@solfertje.student.utwente.nl wrote:

 On 27 Jan 2011, at 15:04, Michael Kemanetzis wrote:

  Hello, I'm experiencing a strange behavior running a simple select query
 on a table that has about 12 million rows. Specifically, changing the
 LIMIT value seems to change the execution plan but the result in one of
 the cases is unjustifiably slow, as if it ignores all indexes.
 
  The table structure, the queries used and the results are here:
 http://pastebin.com/fn36BuKs
 
  Is there anything I can do to improve the speed of this query?

 What does explain analyse say about query B?

 According to the query plan there are about 30k rows with veh_id = 3. From
 the amount of disk I/O you describe it would appear that the rows
 corresponding to that ID are all over the place. I expect that clustering
 that table on the veh_id index will help in that case.

 It does seem a bit strange that the planner is choosing an index scan for
 30k records, I'd expect a sequential scan to be more efficient. That seems
 to be another indication that your records are very fragmented with regards
 to the veh_id.

 That, or you are running out of memory (the setting to look at is work_mem
 I think). Did you change any settings from the defaults?


 BTW, 12M records isn't considered a large table by many Postgres users.
 It's certainly not small though, I suppose average fits the bill.

 Alban Hertroys

 --
 If you can't see the forest for the trees,
 cut the trees and you'll see there is no forest.


 !DSPAM:1227,4d41b61c11731997733516!





Re: [GENERAL] Select query ignores index on large table

2011-01-27 Thread hubert depesz lubaczewski
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 04:04:02PM +0200, Michael Kemanetzis wrote:
 Hello, I'm experiencing a strange behavior running a simple select query on
 a table that has about 12 million rows. Specifically, changing the LIMIT
 value seems to change the execution plan but the result in one of the cases
 is unjustifiably slow, as if it ignores all indexes.
 
 The table structure, the queries used and the results are here:
 http://pastebin.com/fn36BuKs
 
 Is there anything I can do to improve the speed of this query?

create index qq on vehicleevent (veh_id, event_id)
could help.

Best regards,

depesz

-- 
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/depesz  /  blog: http://www.depesz.com/
jid/gtalk: dep...@depesz.com / aim:depeszhdl / skype:depesz_hdl / gg:6749007

-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general


Re: [GENERAL] Select query ignores index on large table

2011-01-27 Thread Alban Hertroys
On 27 Jan 2011, at 15:04, Michael Kemanetzis wrote:

 Hello, I'm experiencing a strange behavior running a simple select query on a 
 table that has about 12 million rows. Specifically, changing the LIMIT 
 value seems to change the execution plan but the result in one of the cases 
 is unjustifiably slow, as if it ignores all indexes.
 
 The table structure, the queries used and the results are here: 
 http://pastebin.com/fn36BuKs
 
 Is there anything I can do to improve the speed of this query?

What does explain analyse say about query B?

According to the query plan there are about 30k rows with veh_id = 3. From the 
amount of disk I/O you describe it would appear that the rows corresponding to 
that ID are all over the place. I expect that clustering that table on the 
veh_id index will help in that case.

It does seem a bit strange that the planner is choosing an index scan for 30k 
records, I'd expect a sequential scan to be more efficient. That seems to be 
another indication that your records are very fragmented with regards to the 
veh_id.

That, or you are running out of memory (the setting to look at is work_mem I 
think). Did you change any settings from the defaults?


BTW, 12M records isn't considered a large table by many Postgres users. It's 
certainly not small though, I suppose average fits the bill.

Alban Hertroys

--
If you can't see the forest for the trees,
cut the trees and you'll see there is no forest.


!DSPAM:737,4d41b62211732046819744!



-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general