pg.ddx.io pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedBUG #18423: suboptimal query plan is used when ordering by an indexed field with limit
3+ messages / 3 participants
[nested] [flat]
* BUG #18423: suboptimal query plan is used when ordering by an indexed field with limit
@ 2024-04-06 19:14 PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: PG Bug reporting form @ 2024-04-06 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; +Cc: maojiayin@gmail.com
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 18423
Logged by: Jiayin Mao
Email address: maojiayin@gmail.com
PostgreSQL version: 15.0
Operating system: all
Description:
We found that when we use ORDER BY on an indexed field with a small limit
value the index on the ordered field is always used, leading to long
execution time when the ordered field does not have good selectivity.
Usually the main purpose for using ORDER BY with LIMIT is to make sure the
search result is stable. It is the conditions in the query (the expressions
between WHERE and ORDER BY) that application developers want query planner
to choose to select targeted rows as a first step.
For example, our "user" table has an id primary key, an "org_id" column and
a "disabled" column. The table has millions of rows and for each org_id
there is only usually a few hundred rows. We have an index on (org_id,
disabled) and that index can quickly select a few hundred rows from the
million-row table. We want to find the row with the smallest id with a given
org_id, so we use "ORDER BY id LIMIT 1" as order condition. The query plan
uses the btree index on the id field since it is the ordered field, causing
the execution to first see a lot more rows than it needs. In the following
query plan, it has to remove 596003 rows but the org only has a few hundred
rows, which can be seen in the second query plan below.
```
explain analyze SELECT * FROM "user" WHERE org_id = 123456 AND disabled =
false ORDER BY id LIMIT 1;
QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit (cost=0.43..366.83 rows=1 width=232) (actual time=357.319..357.320
rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using user_pkey on user (cost=0.43..306673.84 rows=837
width=232) (actual time=357.319..357.319 rows=1 loops=1)
Filter: ((NOT disabled) AND (org_id = 123456))
Rows Removed by Filter: 596003
Planning Time: 0.885 ms
Execution Time: 357.373 ms
```
If the index of (org_id, disabled) is used by tricking the query planner
with "ORDER BY id + 0 LIMIT 1", the query time drops from 357ms to 1.5ms.
```
EXPLAIN analyze SELECT * FROM "user" WHERE org_id = 123456 and disabled =
false order by user.id + 0 limit 1;
QUERY
PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit (cost=3145.61..3145.62 rows=1 width=236) (actual time=1.513..1.514
rows=1 loops=1)
-> Sort (cost=3145.61..3147.71 rows=837 width=236) (actual
time=1.512..1.513 rows=1 loops=1)
Sort Key: ((id + 0))
Sort Method: top-N heapsort Memory: 25kB
-> Index Scan using user_org_disabled_idx on user
(cost=0.43..3141.43 rows=837 width=236) (actual time=0.049..1.407 rows=166
loops=1)
Index Cond: ((org_id = 123456) AND (disabled = false))
Planning Time: 0.908 ms
Execution Time: 1.580 ms
```
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: BUG #18423: suboptimal query plan is used when ordering by an indexed field with limit
@ 2024-04-06 23:25 Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
parent: PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Janes @ 2024-04-06 23:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: maojiayin@gmail.com; pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 5:44 PM PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>
wrote:
>
> For example, our "user" table has an id primary key, an "org_id" column and
> a "disabled" column. The table has millions of rows and for each org_id
> there is only usually a few hundred rows.
It would be helpful to know precisely how many millions of rows. We know
it actually removed 596003 rows from the ordered index scan, but we don't
know how many it thought it would need to remove. I reckon it thought it
would remove # in table / 837, but I don't know what that division comes
out to, not knowing the numerator.
> -> Index Scan using user_org_disabled_idx on user
> (cost=0.43..3141.43 rows=837 width=236) (actual time=0.049..1.407 rows=166
> loops=1)
>
So this estimate is quite wrong, 837/166 = 5. Do you know why? This bad
estimate makes this plan look 5 times too expensive, and the competing one
look 5 times too cheap, for a ratio of 25. That is more than the current
ratio between the two plan cost estimates, so fixing this could drive the
difference. (The ratio of actual times is more than 25, so there is more
to the problem than just this, but fixing this alone should be enough to
drive the correct choice). So why is this estimate that bad? Is the
selectivity estimate of `org_id = 123456` alone that bad, or is it only
when combined with `disabled=false`?
A more robust solution is to add an index on (org_id, disabled, id). That
way it can combine the two strategies, jumping to just the part of the
index it needs and then reading it already in order. Not only will this be
much faster than either of the two plans you show, it will also be more
resilient to estimation errors.
Anyway, these just look like well-known estimation difficulties, nothing
which seems like an actual bug. Estimation is hard and sometimes there is
no way to know the correct value to use until after the query is already
underway.
Cheers,
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: BUG #18423: suboptimal query plan is used when ordering by an indexed field with limit
@ 2024-04-07 03:32 Mao Jiayin <maojiayin@gmail.com>
parent: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Mao Jiayin @ 2024-04-07 03:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>; +Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Thanks Jeff. This is really helpful. I agree this is not really a bug,
please feel free to close it.
If you still want to know the size of the table, it is about 6 million.
On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 7:25 PM Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 5:44 PM PG Bug reporting form <
> noreply@postgresql.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> For example, our "user" table has an id primary key, an "org_id" column
>> and
>> a "disabled" column. The table has millions of rows and for each org_id
>> there is only usually a few hundred rows.
>
>
> It would be helpful to know precisely how many millions of rows. We know
> it actually removed 596003 rows from the ordered index scan, but we don't
> know how many it thought it would need to remove. I reckon it thought it
> would remove # in table / 837, but I don't know what that division comes
> out to, not knowing the numerator.
>
>
>> -> Index Scan using user_org_disabled_idx on user
>> (cost=0.43..3141.43 rows=837 width=236) (actual time=0.049..1.407 rows=166
>> loops=1)
>>
>
> So this estimate is quite wrong, 837/166 = 5. Do you know why? This bad
> estimate makes this plan look 5 times too expensive, and the competing one
> look 5 times too cheap, for a ratio of 25. That is more than the current
> ratio between the two plan cost estimates, so fixing this could drive the
> difference. (The ratio of actual times is more than 25, so there is more
> to the problem than just this, but fixing this alone should be enough to
> drive the correct choice). So why is this estimate that bad? Is the
> selectivity estimate of `org_id = 123456` alone that bad, or is it only
> when combined with `disabled=false`?
>
> A more robust solution is to add an index on (org_id, disabled, id). That
> way it can combine the two strategies, jumping to just the part of the
> index it needs and then reading it already in order. Not only will this be
> much faster than either of the two plans you show, it will also be more
> resilient to estimation errors.
>
> Anyway, these just look like well-known estimation difficulties, nothing
> which seems like an actual bug. Estimation is hard and sometimes there is
> no way to know the correct value to use until after the query is already
> underway.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeff
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-04-07 03:32 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-04-06 19:14 BUG #18423: suboptimal query plan is used when ordering by an indexed field with limit PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>
2024-04-06 23:25 ` Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
2024-04-07 03:32 ` Mao Jiayin <maojiayin@gmail.com>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox