Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 13:53:34 -0600
From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Michael Lewis <mlewis@entrata.com>
Cc: Marco Colli <collimarco91@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Slow "not in array" operation
Message-ID: <20191112195334.GP2923@telsasoft.com>
References: 
 <CAFvCgN73NJbSdtCFvcD3=Hh+xGipDkUk+H4uzubQXx2rncQJ+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHOFxGq3Udhpd9Y49JwCzqR_bUjCDzGsMX36V57ryzpbaG1hdg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFvCgN6bQhf03jdakdk1eVMad8r=6nFV=cmy2v_sp0f8_kZ-bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHOFxGpt73epD-gYH32u9pOZJkvEO=iNstGJ+jkSkd59LuEtMQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAHOFxGpt73epD-gYH32u9pOZJkvEO=iNstGJ+jkSkd59LuEtMQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:20:10PM -0700, Michael Lewis wrote:
> It is very interesting to me that the optimizer chose a parallel sequential
> scan rather than an index scan on either of your indexes that start
> with project_id that also reference trashed_at.

Maybe because of low correlation on any of those columns?
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Slow_Query_Questions#Statistics:_n_distinct.2C_MCV.2C_histogram
SELECT (SELECT sum(x) FROM unnest(most_common_freqs) x) frac_MCV, tablename, attname, inherited, null_frac, n_distinct, array_length(most_common_vals,1) n_mcv, array_length(histogram_bounds,1) n_hist, correlation FROM pg_stats WHERE tablename='subscriptions' AND  attname IN ('project_id','tags') ORDER BY 1 DESC; 

Maybe clustering the table on project_id (and ANALYZEing) would help, but that
might need to be done consistently.

Michael previously suggested partitioning which, if done on project_id,
would then no longer need to be specially CLUSTERed.

Is the plan for the fast query the same as in August ?
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFvCgN4UijKTYiOF61Tyd%2BgHvF_oqnMabatS9%2BDcX%2B_PK2SHRw%40mail.gmail.com

Justin