pg.ddx.io pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feeddifference in plan between 8.0 and 8.1?
5+ messages / 4 participants
[nested] [flat]
* difference in plan between 8.0 and 8.1?
@ 2005-08-26 14:45 Alan Stange <stange@rentec.com>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Alan Stange @ 2005-08-26 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
Hello all,
I was hoping someone could explain the plan for a statement.
We have a table with a column of longs being used as an index. The
query plan in 8.0 was like this:
# explain select distinct timeseriesid from tbltimeseries where
timeseriesid > 0 order by timeseriesid;
SET
QUERY PLAN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unique (cost=0.00..15065908.60 rows=10854026 width=8)
-> Index Scan using idx_timeseris on tbltimeseries
(cost=0.00..15038773.53 rows=10854026 width=8)
Index Cond: (timeseriesid > 0)
(3 rows)
In 8.1, (using the same database after a dump+restore+vacuum+analyze) I
get the following:
# explain select distinct timeseriesid from tbltimeseries where
timeseriesid > 0 order by timeseriesid;
QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unique (cost=2717137.08..2771407.21 rows=10854026 width=8)
-> Sort (cost=2717137.08..2744272.14 rows=10854026 width=8)
Sort Key: timeseriesid
-> Bitmap Heap Scan on tbltimeseries
(cost=48714.09..1331000.42 rows=10854026 width=8)
Recheck Cond: (timeseriesid > 0)
-> Bitmap Index Scan on idx_timeseris
(cost=0.00..48714.09 rows=10854026 width=0)
Index Cond: (timeseriesid > 0)
(7 rows)
I'm hoping someone can explain the new query plan (as I'm not sure I
understand what it is doing).
Thanks!
-- Alan
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: difference in plan between 8.0 and 8.1?
@ 2005-08-26 15:12 Merlin Moncure <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Merlin Moncure @ 2005-08-26 15:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: stange@rentec.com; +Cc: pgsql-performance
> Hello all,
>
> I was hoping someone could explain the plan for a statement.
>
> We have a table with a column of longs being used as an index. The
> query plan in 8.0 was like this:
>
> # explain select distinct timeseriesid from tbltimeseries where
> timeseriesid > 0 order by timeseriesid;
I had the same problem. You probably already have seq scan turned off,
or the server would be using that. You may have to turn bitmap off or
rework you query such that the server will use the index. (between?).
Anyways, distinct is code word for 'bad performance' :). Consider
laying out tables such that it not necessary, for example set up table
with RI link. Then you can do this in zero time.
Good luck!
Merlin
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: difference in plan between 8.0 and 8.1?
@ 2005-08-26 15:16 Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org>
parent: Alan Stange <stange@rentec.com>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Michael Fuhr @ 2005-08-26 15:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alan Stange <stange@rentec.com>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 10:45:07AM -0400, Alan Stange wrote:
> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on tbltimeseries (cost=48714.09..1331000.42 rows=10854026 width=8)
> Recheck Cond: (timeseriesid > 0)
> -> Bitmap Index Scan on idx_timeseris (cost=0.00..48714.09 rows=10854026 width=0)
> Index Cond: (timeseriesid > 0)
>
> I'm hoping someone can explain the new query plan (as I'm not sure I
> understand what it is doing).
Search for "bitmap" in the 8.1 Release Notes:
http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/release.html#RELEASE-8-1
You could probably find more detailed discussion in the pgsql-hackers
archives.
--
Michael Fuhr
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: difference in plan between 8.0 and 8.1?
@ 2005-08-26 15:16 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
parent: Alan Stange <stange@rentec.com>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2005-08-26 15:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: stange@rentec.com; +Cc: pgsql-performance
Alan Stange <stange@rentec.com> writes:
> Unique (cost=2717137.08..2771407.21 rows=10854026 width=8)
> -> Sort (cost=2717137.08..2744272.14 rows=10854026 width=8)
> Sort Key: timeseriesid
> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on tbltimeseries
> (cost=48714.09..1331000.42 rows=10854026 width=8)
> Recheck Cond: (timeseriesid > 0)
> -> Bitmap Index Scan on idx_timeseris
> (cost=0.00..48714.09 rows=10854026 width=0)
> Index Cond: (timeseriesid > 0)
> (7 rows)
> I'm hoping someone can explain the new query plan (as I'm not sure I
> understand what it is doing).
The index scan is reading the index to find out which heap tuple IDs
(TIDs) the index says meet the condition. It returns a bitmap of the
tuple locations (actually, an array of per-page bitmaps). The heap
scan goes and fetches the tuples from the table, working in TID order
to avoid re-reading the same page many times, as can happen for ordinary
index scans. Since the result isn't sorted, we have to do a sort to get
it into the correct order for the Unique step.
Because it avoids random access to the heap, this plan can be a lot
faster than a regular index scan. I'm not sure at all that 8.1 is
doing good relative cost estimation yet, though. It would be
interesting to see EXPLAIN ANALYZE results for both ways. (You can
use enable_bitmapscan and enable_indexscan to force the planner to pick
the plan it thinks is slower.)
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: difference in plan between 8.0 and 8.1?
@ 2005-08-26 19:01 Alan Stange <stange@rentec.com>
parent: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Alan Stange @ 2005-08-26 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alan Stange <stange@rentec.com> writes:
>
>> Unique (cost=2717137.08..2771407.21 rows=10854026 width=8)
>> -> Sort (cost=2717137.08..2744272.14 rows=10854026 width=8)
>> Sort Key: timeseriesid
>> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on tbltimeseries
>> (cost=48714.09..1331000.42 rows=10854026 width=8)
>> Recheck Cond: (timeseriesid > 0)
>> -> Bitmap Index Scan on idx_timeseris
>> (cost=0.00..48714.09 rows=10854026 width=0)
>> Index Cond: (timeseriesid > 0)
>> (7 rows)
>>
>
>
>> I'm hoping someone can explain the new query plan (as I'm not sure I
>> understand what it is doing).
>>
>
> The index scan is reading the index to find out which heap tuple IDs
> (TIDs) the index says meet the condition. It returns a bitmap of the
> tuple locations (actually, an array of per-page bitmaps). The heap
> scan goes and fetches the tuples from the table, working in TID order
> to avoid re-reading the same page many times, as can happen for ordinary
> index scans. Since the result isn't sorted, we have to do a sort to get
> it into the correct order for the Unique step.
>
> Because it avoids random access to the heap, this plan can be a lot
> faster than a regular index scan. I'm not sure at all that 8.1 is
> doing good relative cost estimation yet, though. It would be
> interesting to see EXPLAIN ANALYZE results for both ways. (You can
> use enable_bitmapscan and enable_indexscan to force the planner to pick
> the plan it thinks is slower.)
Just to be clear. The index is on the timeseriesid column. Also, We
usually have the where clause with some non-zero number.
Anyway, here's the basic query, with variations added on belowe:
fiasco=# explain analyze select timeseriesid from tbltimeseries where
timeseriesid > 0;
QUERY
PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bitmap Heap Scan on tbltimeseries (cost=48906.82..1332935.19
rows=10905949 width=8) (actual time=16476.337..787480.979 rows=10907853
loops=1)
Recheck Cond: (timeseriesid > 0)
-> Bitmap Index Scan on idx_timeseris (cost=0.00..48906.82
rows=10905949 width=0) (actual time=16443.585..16443.585 rows=10907853
loops=1)
Index Cond: (timeseriesid > 0)
Total runtime: 791340.341 ms
(5 rows)
Now add the order:
fiasco=# explain analyze select timeseriesid from tbltimeseries where
timeseriesid > 0 order by timeseriesid;
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sort (cost=2726087.93..2753352.81 rows=10905949 width=8) (actual
time=821090.666..826353.054 rows=10913868 loops=1)
Sort Key: timeseriesid
-> Bitmap Heap Scan on tbltimeseries (cost=48912.82..1332941.19
rows=10905949 width=8) (actual time=16353.921..757075.349 rows=10913868
loops=1)
Recheck Cond: (timeseriesid > 0)
-> Bitmap Index Scan on idx_timeseris (cost=0.00..48912.82
rows=10905949 width=0) (actual time=16335.239..16335.239 rows=10913868
loops=1)
Index Cond: (timeseriesid > 0)
Total runtime: 830829.145 ms
(7 rows)
and the distinct:
fiasco=# explain analyze select distinct timeseriesid from tbltimeseries
where timeseriesid > 0 order by timeseriesid;
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unique (cost=2726087.93..2780617.68 rows=10905949 width=8) (actual
time=816938.970..831119.423 rows=10913868 loops=1)
-> Sort (cost=2726087.93..2753352.81 rows=10905949 width=8) (actual
time=816938.967..822298.802 rows=10913868 loops=1)
Sort Key: timeseriesid
-> Bitmap Heap Scan on tbltimeseries
(cost=48912.82..1332941.19 rows=10905949 width=8) (actual
time=15866.736..752851.006 rows=10913868 loops=1)
Recheck Cond: (timeseriesid > 0)
-> Bitmap Index Scan on idx_timeseris
(cost=0.00..48912.82 rows=10905949 width=0) (actual
time=15852.652..15852.652 rows=10913868 loops=1)
Index Cond: (timeseriesid > 0)
Total runtime: 835558.312 ms
(8 rows)
Now the usual query from 8.0:
fiasco=# set enable_bitmapscan=false; explain analyze select distinct
timeseriesid from tbltimeseries where timeseriesid > 0 order by
timeseriesid;
SET
QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unique (cost=0.00..14971276.10 rows=10905949 width=8) (actual
time=24.930..999645.638 rows=10913868 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using idx_timeseris on tbltimeseries
(cost=0.00..14944011.22 rows=10905949 width=8) (actual
time=24.926..989117.882 rows=10913868 loops=1)
Index Cond: (timeseriesid > 0)
Total runtime: 1003549.067 ms
(4 rows)
And now a sequential scan of the table itself:
fiasco=# set enable_bitmapscan=false; set enable_indexscan=false;
explain analyze select distinct timeseriesid from tbltimeseries where
timeseriesid > 0 order by timeseriesid;
SET
SET
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unique (cost=102677188.75..102731718.49 rows=10905949 width=8) (actual
time=956783.989..971036.657 rows=10919883 loops=1)
-> Sort (cost=102677188.75..102704453.62 rows=10905949 width=8)
(actual time=956783.985..962115.616 rows=10919883 loops=1)
Sort Key: timeseriesid
-> Seq Scan on tbltimeseries (cost=100000000.00..101284042.00
rows=10905949 width=8) (actual time=7.314..893267.030 rows=10919883 loops=1)
Filter: (timeseriesid > 0)
Total runtime: 975393.678 ms
(6 rows)
For us, the query is best served by the index scan as the ordering comes
for free and results can be streamed to a client immediately. So, while
the whole query is a bit slower, the client can begin processing the
results immediately. The client has three threads which stream in two
sets of id's and emit delete statements in smaller batches. It can be
done as one statement, but on our production system that statement can
run for 10 hours and delete 20M rows...which conflicts with the vacuum
process. This version can be throttled, stopped and restarted at any
time and no work is lost compared to a single long running query.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-08-26 19:01 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-08-26 14:45 difference in plan between 8.0 and 8.1? Alan Stange <stange@rentec.com>
2005-08-26 15:16 ` Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org>
2005-08-26 15:16 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2005-08-26 19:01 ` Alan Stange <stange@rentec.com>
2005-08-26 15:12 Re: difference in plan between 8.0 and 8.1? Merlin Moncure <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.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