Re: [PERFORM] order by slowing down a query by 80 times
Rajesh Kumar Mallah writes: > co_name_vec is actually the auxiliary tsvector column that is mantained via > a > an update trigger. and the index that you suggested is there . Well, in that case it's just a costing/statistics issue. The planner is probably estimating there are more tsvector matches than there really are, which causes it to think the in-order indexscan will terminate earlier than it really will, so it goes for that instead of a full scan and sort. If this is 8.4 then increasing the statistics target for the co_name_vec column should help that. In previous versions I'm not sure how much you can do about it other than raise random_page_cost, which is likely to be a net loss overall. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] order by slowing down a query by 80 times
The way to make this go faster is to set up the actually recommended
> infrastructure for full text search, namely create an index on
> (co_name_vec)::tsvector (either directly or using an auxiliary tsvector
> column). If you don't want to maintain such an index, fine, but don't
> expect full text search queries to be quick.
>
>regards, tom lane
>
Dear Tom/List ,
co_name_vec is actually the auxiliary tsvector column that is mantained via
a
an update trigger. and the index that you suggested is there . consider
simplified
version. When we order by co_name the index on co_name_vec is not used
some other index is used.
tradein_clients=> explain analyze SELECT profile_id from
general.profile_master b where 1=1 and co_name_vec @@ to_tsquery
('manufacturer') order by co_name limit 25;
QUERY PLAN
---
Limit (cost=0.00..3958.48 rows=25 width=25) (actual time=0.045..19.847
rows=25 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using profile_master_co_name on profile_master b
(cost=0.00..1125315.59 rows=7107 width=25) (actual time=0.043..19.818
rows=25 loops=1)
Filter: ((co_name_vec)::tsvector @@
to_tsquery('manufacturer'::text))
Total runtime: 19.894 ms
(4 rows)
tradein_clients=> explain analyze SELECT profile_id from
general.profile_master b where 1=1 and co_name_vec @@ to_tsquery
('manufacturer')limit 25;
QUERY PLAN
---
Limit (cost=0.00..101.18 rows=25 width=4) (actual time=0.051..0.632
rows=25 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using profile_master_co_name_vec on profile_master b
(cost=0.00..28761.89 rows=7107 width=4) (actual time=0.049..0.593 rows=25
loops=1)
Index Cond: ((co_name_vec)::tsvector @@
to_tsquery('manufacturer'::text))
Total runtime: 0.666 ms
(4 rows)
tradein_clients=>
Re: [PERFORM] order by slowing down a query by 80 times
Dear Tom/Kevin/List thanks for the insight, i will check the suggestion more closely and post the results. regds Rajesh Kumar Mallah.
Re: [PERFORM] order by slowing down a query by 80 times
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
> Rajesh Kumar Mallah wrote:
>> just by removing the order by co_name reduces the query time
>> dramatically from ~ 9 sec to 63 ms. Can anyone please help.
> The reason is that one query allows it to return *any* 25 rows,
> while the other query requires it to find a *specific* set of 25
> rows. It happens to be faster to just grab any old set of rows than
> to find particular ones.
I'm guessing that most of the cost is in repeated evaluations of the
filter clause
(co_name_vec)::tsvector @@ to_tsquery('manufacturer'::text)
There are two extremely expensive functions involved there (cast to
tsvector and to_tsquery) and they're being done over again at what
I suspect is practically every table row. The unordered query is
so much faster because it stops after having evaluated the text
search clause just a few times.
The way to make this go faster is to set up the actually recommended
infrastructure for full text search, namely create an index on
(co_name_vec)::tsvector (either directly or using an auxiliary tsvector
column). If you don't want to maintain such an index, fine, but don't
expect full text search queries to be quick.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] order by slowing down a query by 80 times
Rajesh Kumar Mallah wrote: > just by removing the order by co_name reduces the query time > dramatically from ~ 9 sec to 63 ms. Can anyone please help. The reason is that one query allows it to return *any* 25 rows, while the other query requires it to find a *specific* set of 25 rows. It happens to be faster to just grab any old set of rows than to find particular ones. If the actual results you need are the ones sorted by name, then forget the other query and focus on how you can retrieve the desired results more quickly. One valuable piece of information would be to know how many rows the query would return without the limit. It's also possible that your costing factors may need adjustment. Or you may need to get finer-grained statistics -- the optimizer thought it would save time to use an index in the sequence you wanted, but it had to scan through 2212 rows to find 25 rows which matched the selection criteria. It might well have been faster to use a table scan and sort than to follow the index like that. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] order by slowing down a query by 80 times
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Yeb Havinga wrote:
> Rajesh Kumar Mallah wrote:
>
>> Dear List,
>>
>> just by removing the order by co_name reduces the query time dramatically
>> from ~ 9 sec to 63 ms. Can anyone please help.
>>
> The 63 ms query result is probably useless since it returns a limit of 25
> rows from an unordered result. It is not surprising that this is fast.
>
> The pain is here:
>
> Index Scan using profile_master_co_name on profile_master b
> (cost=0.00..1125295.59 rows=6968 width=25) (actual time=0.097..9193.154
> rows=2212 loops=1)
>Filter: ((co_name IS NOT NULL) AND
> ((co_name_vec)::tsvector @@ to_tsquery('manufacturer'::text)))
>
>
> It looks like seq_scans are disabled, since the index scan has only a
> filter expression but not an index cond.
>
seq_scans is NOT explicitly disabled. The two queries just differed in the
order by clause.
regds
Rajesh Kumar Mallah.
>
> regards,
> Yeb Havinga
>
>
>
>> Regds
>> Rajesh Kumar Mallah.
>>
>
Re: [PERFORM] order by slowing down a query by 80 times
On Monday 28 June 2010 13:39:27 Yeb Havinga wrote: > It looks like seq_scans are disabled, since the index scan has only a > filter expression but not an index cond. Or its using it to get an ordered result... Andres -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] order by slowing down a query by 80 times
Rajesh Kumar Mallah wrote:
Dear List,
just by removing the order by co_name reduces the query time dramatically
from ~ 9 sec to 63 ms. Can anyone please help.
The 63 ms query result is probably useless since it returns a limit of
25 rows from an unordered result. It is not surprising that this is fast.
The pain is here:
Index Scan using profile_master_co_name on profile_master b
(cost=0.00..1125295.59 rows=6968 width=25) (actual time=0.097..9193.154
rows=2212 loops=1)
Filter: ((co_name IS NOT NULL) AND
((co_name_vec)::tsvector @@ to_tsquery('manufacturer'::text)))
It looks like seq_scans are disabled, since the index scan has only a
filter expression but not an index cond.
regards,
Yeb Havinga
Regds
Rajesh Kumar Mallah.
explain analyze SELECT * from ( SELECT
a.profile_id,a.userid,a.amount,a.category_id,a.catalog_id,a.keywords,b.co_name
from general.catalogs a join general.profile_master using(profile_id)
where 1=1 and co_name_vec @@ to_tsquery('manufacturer') and
b.co_name is not null and a.ifmain is true ) as c order by co_name
limit 25 offset 0;
Limit (cost=0.00..3659.13 rows=25 width=129) (actual
time=721.075..9241.105 rows=25 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..1215772.28 rows=8307 width=476)
(actual time=721.073..9241.050 rows=25 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..1208212.37 rows=8307 width=476)
(actual time=721.052..9240.037 rows=25 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..1204206.26 rows=6968
width=472) (actual time=721.032..9239.516 rows=25 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..1154549.19 rows=6968
width=471) (actual time=721.012..9236.523 rows=25 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using profile_master_co_name
on profile_master b (cost=0.00..1125295.59 rows=6968 width=25)
(actual time=0.097..9193.154 rows=2212 loops=1)
Filter: ((co_name IS NOT NULL) AND
((co_name_vec)::tsvector @@ to_tsquery('manufacturer'::text)))
-> Index Scan using
catalog_master_profile_id_fkindex on catalog_master (cost=0.00..4.19
rows=1 width=446) (actual time=0.016..0.016 rows=0 loops=2212)
Index Cond:
(catalog_master.profile_id = b.profile_id)
Filter: ((catalog_master.hide IS
FALSE) AND ((catalog_master.hosting_status)::text = 'ACTIVE'::text))
-> Index Scan using
profile_master_profile_id_pkey on profile_master (cost=0.00..7.11
rows=1 width=9) (actual time=0.105..0.105 rows=1 loops=25)
Index Cond: (profile_master.profile_id =
catalog_master.profile_id)
-> Index Scan using
catalog_categories_pkey_catalog_id_category_id on catalog_categories
(cost=0.00..0.56 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.014..0.015 rows=1
loops=25)
Index Cond: (catalog_categories.catalog_id =
catalog_master.catalog_id)
Filter: (catalog_categories.ifmain IS TRUE)
-> Index Scan using web_category_master_pkey on
web_category_master (cost=0.00..0.90 rows=1 width=4) (actual
time=0.034..0.036 rows=1 loops=25)
Index Cond: (web_category_master.category_id =
catalog_categories.category_id)
Filter: ((web_category_master.status)::text =
'ACTIVE'::text)
Total runtime: 9241.304 ms
explain analyze SELECT * from ( SELECT
a.profile_id,a.userid,a.amount,a.category_id,a.catalog_id,a.keywords,b.co_name
from general.catalogs a join general.profile_master b
using(profile_id) where 1=1 and co_name_vec @@
to_tsquery('manufacturer') and b.co_name is not null and a.ifmain is
true ) as c limit 25 offset 0;
QUERY PLAN
--
Limit (cost=0.00..358.85 rows=25 width=476) (actual
time=0.680..63.176 rows=25 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..119238.58 rows=8307 width=476) (actual
time=0.677..63.139 rows=25 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..111678.66 rows=8307 width=476)
(actual time=0.649..62.789 rows=25 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..107672.56 rows=6968
width=472) (actual time=0.626..62.436 rows=25 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..58015.49 rows=6968
width=471) (actual time=0.606..62.013 rows=25 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using
profile_master_co_name_vec on profile_master b (cost=0.00..28761.89
rows=6968 width=25) (actual time=0.071..50.576 rows=1160 loops=1)
Index Cond: ((co_name_vec)::tsvector
@@ to_tsquery('manufacturer'::text))
Filter: (co_name IS NOT NULL)
-> Index Scan using
catalog_master_profile_id_fkindex on ca
[PERFORM] order by slowing down a query by 80 times
Dear List,
just by removing the order by co_name reduces the query time dramatically
from ~ 9 sec to 63 ms. Can anyone please help.
Regds
Rajesh Kumar Mallah.
explain analyze SELECT * from ( SELECT
a.profile_id,a.userid,a.amount,a.category_id,a.catalog_id,a.keywords,b.co_name
from general.catalogs a join general.profile_master using(profile_id) where
1=1 and co_name_vec @@ to_tsquery('manufacturer') and b.co_name is not
null and a.ifmain is true ) as c order by co_name
limit 25 offset 0;
Limit (cost=0.00..3659.13 rows=25 width=129) (actual time=721.075..9241.105
rows=25 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..1215772.28 rows=8307 width=476) (actual
time=721.073..9241.050 rows=25 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..1208212.37 rows=8307 width=476)
(actual time=721.052..9240.037 rows=25 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..1204206.26 rows=6968 width=472)
(actual time=721.032..9239.516 rows=25 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..1154549.19 rows=6968
width=471) (actual time=721.012..9236.523 rows=25 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using profile_master_co_name on
profile_master b (cost=0.00..1125295.59 rows=6968 width=25) (actual
time=0.097..9193.154 rows=2212 loops=1)
Filter: ((co_name IS NOT NULL) AND
((co_name_vec)::tsvector @@ to_tsquery('manufacturer'::text)))
-> Index Scan using
catalog_master_profile_id_fkindex on catalog_master (cost=0.00..4.19 rows=1
width=446) (actual time=0.016..0.016 rows=0 loops=2212)
Index Cond: (catalog_master.profile_id =
b.profile_id)
Filter: ((catalog_master.hide IS FALSE) AND
((catalog_master.hosting_status)::text = 'ACTIVE'::text))
-> Index Scan using profile_master_profile_id_pkey on
profile_master (cost=0.00..7.11 rows=1 width=9) (actual time=0.105..0.105
rows=1 loops=25)
Index Cond: (profile_master.profile_id =
catalog_master.profile_id)
-> Index Scan using
catalog_categories_pkey_catalog_id_category_id on catalog_categories
(cost=0.00..0.56 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.014..0.015 rows=1 loops=25)
Index Cond: (catalog_categories.catalog_id =
catalog_master.catalog_id)
Filter: (catalog_categories.ifmain IS TRUE)
-> Index Scan using web_category_master_pkey on
web_category_master (cost=0.00..0.90 rows=1 width=4) (actual
time=0.034..0.036 rows=1 loops=25)
Index Cond: (web_category_master.category_id =
catalog_categories.category_id)
Filter: ((web_category_master.status)::text = 'ACTIVE'::text)
Total runtime: 9241.304 ms
explain analyze SELECT * from ( SELECT
a.profile_id,a.userid,a.amount,a.category_id,a.catalog_id,a.keywords,b.co_name
from general.catalogs a join general.profile_master b using(profile_id)
where 1=1 and co_name_vec @@ to_tsquery('manufacturer') and b.co_name
is not null and a.ifmain is true ) as c limit 25 offset 0;
QUERY PLAN
--
Limit (cost=0.00..358.85 rows=25 width=476) (actual time=0.680..63.176
rows=25 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..119238.58 rows=8307 width=476) (actual
time=0.677..63.139 rows=25 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..111678.66 rows=8307 width=476) (actual
time=0.649..62.789 rows=25 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..107672.56 rows=6968 width=472)
(actual time=0.626..62.436 rows=25 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..58015.49 rows=6968
width=471) (actual time=0.606..62.013 rows=25 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using profile_master_co_name_vec
on profile_master b (cost=0.00..28761.89 rows=6968 width=25) (actual
time=0.071..50.576 rows=1160 loops=1)
Index Cond: ((co_name_vec)::tsvector @@
to_tsquery('manufacturer'::text))
Filter: (co_name IS NOT NULL)
-> Index Scan using
catalog_master_profile_id_fkindex on catalog_master (cost=0.00..4.19 rows=1
width=446) (actual time=0.008..0.008 rows=0 loops=1160)
Index Cond: (catalog_master.profile_id =
b.profile_id)
Filter: ((catalog_master.hide IS FALSE) AND
((catalog_master.hosting_status)::text = 'ACTIVE'::text))
-> Index Scan using profile_master_profile_id_pkey on
profile_master (cost=0.00..7.11 rows=1 width=9) (actual time=0.012..0.012
rows=1 loops=25)
Index Cond: (profile_master.profile_id =
catalog_master.profile_id)
-> Index Scan using
catalog_categories_pkey_catalog_id_category_id on catalog_categories
(cost=0.00..0.56 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.010..0.011 rows=1 loops=25)
Index Cond: (catalog_categor
