Converting Nested loop to hashjoin for not is distinct from case
Hi, I have a join query with is not distinct from criteria (select * from table1 join table2 on a is not distinct from b). on examining, it was the nested loop join that makes the query slow. For join with ' is not distinct from ' qual can't the planner choose hash-join over nested loop or will there be any problem by doing so. Kindly enlighten me about the same. Thanks Pradeep
Re: Ambigous Plan - Larger Table on Hash Side
Hi Jeff, I repeated the same query with a work_mem of 2000MB. It is faster than the one with two batches but still slower than hashing the smaller table. So in this case It makes more sense to hash the smaller table (less execution time and reduce hash table size). Explain analyze with higher work_mem (2 GB) tpch=# explain analyze select b from tab2 left join tab1 on a = b; QUERY PLAN Hash Left Join (cost=825722.33..830863.00 rows=78264 width=4) (actual time=7876.746..7905.323 rows=78264 loops=1) Hash Cond: (tab2.b = tab1.a) -> Seq Scan on tab2 (cost=0.00..1129.64 rows=78264 width=4) (actual time=0.007..4.268 rows=78264 loops=1) -> Hash (cost=442375.48..442375.48 rows=30667748 width=4) (actual time=7834.214..7834.214 rows=30667722 loops=1) Buckets: 33554432 Batches: 1 Memory Usage: 1340307kB -> Seq Scan on tab1 (cost=0.00..442375.48 rows=30667748 width=4) (actual time=0.047..2267.995 rows=30667722 loops=1) Planning time: 0.052 ms Execution time: 7953.913 ms (8 rows) Yeah, explain analyze distorted the time, while the actual query is twice faster. Still, 2GB work_mem is not a feasible idea. Is there a way to avoid these plan (especially avoiding larger table on hash side) or any work around available ? Thanks, Pradeep On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 00:40:27 +0530 Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:02 AM, Narendra Pradeep U U <narendra.prad...@zohocorp.com> wrote: Hi, Thanks everyone for your suggestions. I would like to add explain analyze of both the plans so that we can have broader picture. I have a work_mem of 1000 MB. Is it possible to repeat with 2000MB or 3000MB? It would be interesting to see what the estimated cost and what the actual time would be if there were only 1 batch rather than 2. Also, can you repeat all of these with EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, TIMING OFF) ? Sometimes the act of measuring the times can distort the times by quite a bit. (It will still give an overall execution time, it just won't try to attribute that time to the individual steps) Cheers, Jeff
Re: Ambigous Plan - Larger Table on Hash Side
Hi, Thanks everyone for your suggestions. I would like to add explain analyze of both the plans so that we can have broader picture. I have a work_mem of 1000 MB. The Plan which we get regularly with table being analyzed . tpch=# explain analyze select b from tab2 left join tab1 on a = b; QUERY PLAN Hash Left Join (cost=945515.68..1071064.34 rows=78264 width=4) (actual time=9439.410..20445.620 rows=78264 loops=1) Hash Cond: (tab2.b = tab1.a) -> Seq Scan on tab2 (cost=0.00..1129.64 rows=78264 width=4) (actual time=0.006..5.116 rows=78264 loops=1) -> Hash (cost=442374.30..442374.30 rows=30667630 width=4) (actual time=9133.593..9133.593 rows=30667722 loops=1) Buckets: 33554432 Batches: 2 Memory Usage: 801126kB -> Seq Scan on tab1 (cost=0.00..442374.30 rows=30667630 width=4) (actual time=0.030..3584.652 rows=30667722 loops=1) Planning time: 0.055 ms Execution time: 20472.603 ms (8 rows) I reproduced the other plan by not analyzing the smaller table. tpch=# explain analyze select b from tab2 left join tab1 on a = b; QUERY PLAN -- Hash Right Join (cost=2102.88..905274.97 rows=78039 width=4) (actual time=15.331..7590.406 rows=78264 loops=1) Hash Cond: (tab1.a = tab2.b) -> Seq Scan on tab1 (cost=0.00..442375.48 rows=30667748 width=4) (actual time=0.046..2697.480 rows=30667722 loops=1) -> Hash (cost=1127.39..1127.39 rows=78039 width=4) (actual time=15.133..15.133 rows=78264 loops=1) Buckets: 131072 Batches: 1 Memory Usage: 3776kB -> Seq Scan on tab2 (cost=0.00..1127.39 rows=78039 width=4) (actual time=0.009..5.516 rows=78264 loops=1) Planning time: 0.053 ms Execution time: 7592.688 ms (8 rows) The actual plan seems to be Slower. The smaller table (tab2) has exactly each row duplicated 8 times and all the rows in larger table (tab2) are distinct. what may be the exact reason and can we fix this ? P.s I have also attached a sql file to reproduce this On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:42:12 +0530 Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Narendra Pradeep U U <narendra.prad...@zohocorp.com> wrote: > Hi , > > Recently I came across a case where the planner choose larger table on > hash side. I am not sure whether it is an intended behavior or we are > missing something. > > I have two tables (a and b) each with single column in it. One table > 'a' is large with around 30 million distinct rows and other table 'b' has > merely 70,000 rows with one-seventh (10,000) distinct rows. I have analyzed > both the table. But while joining both the table I get the larger table on > hash side. > > tpch=# explain select b from b left join a on a = b; > QUERY PLAN > - > Hash Left Join (cost=824863.75..950104.42 rows=78264 width=4) > Hash Cond: (b.b = a.a)o > -> Foreign Scan on b (cost=0.00..821.64 rows=78264 width=4) > CStore File: > /home/likewise-open/pg96/data/cstore_fdw/1818708/1849879 > CStore File Size: 314587 > -> Hash (cost=321721.22..321721.22 rows=30667722 width=4) > -> Foreign Scan on a (cost=0.00..321721.22 rows=30667722 width=4) > CStore File: > /home/likewise-open/pg96/data/cstore_fdw/1818708/1849876 > CStore File Size: 123236206 > (9 rows) > > > > I would like to know the reason for choosing this plan and Is there a easy > fix to prevent such plans (especially like this one where it choose a larger > hash table) ? A plan with larger table being hashed doesn't necessarily bad performing one. During partition-wise join analysis I have seen plans with larger table being hashed perform better than the plans with smaller table being hashed. But I have seen the other way around as well. Although, I don't know an easy way to force which side of join gets hashed. I tried that under the debugger. In your case, if you run EXPLAIN ANALYZE on this query, produce outputs of two plans: one with larger table being hashed and second with the smaller one being hashed, you will see which of them performs better. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company join_plan.sql Description: Binary data
Ambigous Plan - Larger Table on Hash Side
Hi , Recently I came across a case where the planner choose larger table on hash side. I am not sure whether it is an intended behavior or we are missing something. I have two tables (a and b) each with single column in it. One table 'a' is large with around 30 million distinct rows and other table 'b' has merely 70,000 rows with one-seventh (10,000) distinct rows. I have analyzed both the table. But while joining both the table I get the larger table on hash side. tpch=# explain select b from b left join a on a = b; QUERY PLAN - Hash Left Join (cost=824863.75..950104.42 rows=78264 width=4) Hash Cond: (b.b = a.a)o -> Foreign Scan on b (cost=0.00..821.64 rows=78264 width=4) CStore File: /home/likewise-open/pg96/data/cstore_fdw/1818708/1849879 CStore File Size: 314587 -> Hash (cost=321721.22..321721.22 rows=30667722 width=4) -> Foreign Scan on a (cost=0.00..321721.22 rows=30667722 width=4) CStore File: /home/likewise-open/pg96/data/cstore_fdw/1818708/1849876 CStore File Size: 123236206 (9 rows) I would like to know the reason for choosing this plan and Is there a easy fix to prevent such plans (especially like this one where it choose a larger hash table) ? Thanks, Pradeep
