From: Craig A. James <cjames@modgraph-usa.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Cost Issue - How do I force a Hash Join
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:54:14 -0800
Message-ID: <43FAAB06.5030901@modgraph-usa.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4360.1140500155@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <028401c636a5$907fb4b0$3100000a@demo1>
<4360.1140500155@sss.pgh.pa.us>
"Virag Saksena" <virag@auptyma.com> writes:
>> The individual queries run in 50-300 ms. However the optimizer is
>> choosing a nested loop to join them rather than a Hash join...
I have what appears to be the identical problem.
This is a straightforward query that should be fairly quick, but takes about 30 minutes. It's a query across three tables, call them A, B, and C. The tables are joined on indexed columns.
Here's a quick summary:
Table A -----> Table B -----> Table C
A_ID B_ID C_ID
A_ID NAME
C_ID
Tables A and B have 6 million rows each. Table C is small: 67 names, no repeats. All columns involved in the join are indexed.
Summary:
1. Query B only: 2.7 seconds, 302175 rows returned
2. Join B and C: 4.3 seconds, exact same answer
3. Join A and B: 7.2 minutes, exact same answer
4. Join A, B, C: 32.7 minutes, exact same answer
Looking at these:
Query #1 is doing the real work: finding the rows of interest.
Queries #1 and #2 ought to be virtually identical, since Table C has
just one row with C_ID = 9, but the time almost doubles.
Query #3 should take a bit longer than Query #1 because it has to join
300K rows, but the indexes should make this take just a few seconds,
certainly well under a minute.
Query #4 should be identical to Query #3, again because there's only
one row in Table C. 32 minutes is pretty horrible for such a
straightforward query.
It looks to me like the problem is the use of nested loops when a hash join should be used, but I'm no expert at query planning.
This is psql 8.0.3. Table definitions are at the end. (Table and column names are altered to protect the guilty, otherwise these are straight from Postgres.) I ran "vacuum full analyze" after the last data were added. Hardware is a Dell, 2-CPU Xeon, 4 GB memory, database is on a single SATA 7200RPM disk.
Thanks,
Craig
----------------------------
QUERY #1:
---------
explain analyze select B.A_ID from B where B.B_ID = 9;
Index Scan using i_B_B_ID on B (cost=0.00..154401.36 rows=131236 width=4) (actual time=0.158..1387.251 rows=302175 loops=1)
Index Cond: (B_ID = 9)
Total runtime: 2344.053 ms
QUERY #2:
---------
explain analyze select B.A_ID from B join C on (B.C_ID = C.C_ID) where C.name = 'Joe';
Nested Loop (cost=0.00..258501.92 rows=177741 width=4) (actual time=0.349..3392.532 rows=302175 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on C (cost=0.00..12.90 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.232..0.336 rows=1 loops=1)
Filter: ((name)::text = 'Joe'::text)
-> Index Scan using i_B_C_ID on B (cost=0.00..254387.31 rows=328137 width=8) (actual time=0.102..1290.002 rows=302175 loops=1)
Index Cond: (B.C_ID = "outer".C_ID)
Total runtime: 4373.916 ms
QUERY #3:
---------
explain analyze
select A.A_ID from A
join B on (A.A_ID = B.A_ID)
where B.B_ID = 9;
Nested Loop (cost=0.00..711336.41 rows=131236 width=4) (actual time=37.118..429419.347 rows=302175 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using i_B_B_ID on B (cost=0.00..154401.36 rows=131236 width=4) (actual time=27.344..8858.489 rows=302175 loops=1)
Index Cond: (B_ID = 9)
-> Index Scan using pk_A_test on A (cost=0.00..4.23 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=1.372..1.376 rows=1 loops=302175)
Index Cond: (A.A_ID = "outer".A_ID)
Total runtime: 430467.686 ms
QUERY #4:
---------
explain analyze
select A.A_ID from A
join B on (A.A_ID = B.A_ID)
join C on (B.B_ID = C.B_ID)
where C.name = 'Joe';
Nested Loop (cost=0.00..1012793.38 rows=177741 width=4) (actual time=70.184..1960112.247 rows=302175 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..258501.92 rows=177741 width=4) (actual time=52.114..17753.638 rows=302175 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on C (cost=0.00..12.90 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.109..0.176 rows=1 loops=1)
Filter: ((name)::text = 'Joe'::text)
-> Index Scan using i_B_B_ID on B (cost=0.00..254387.31 rows=328137 width=8) (actual time=51.985..15566.896 rows=302175 loops=1)
Index Cond: (B.B_ID = "outer".B_ID)
-> Index Scan using pk_A_test on A (cost=0.00..4.23 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=6.407..6.412 rows=1 loops=302175)
Index Cond: (A.A_ID = "outer".A_ID)
Total runtime: 1961200.079 ms
TABLE DEFINITIONS:
------------------
xxx => \d a
Table "xxx.a"
Column | Type | Modifiers
-------------------+------------------------+-----------
a_id | integer | not null
... more columns
Indexes:
"pk_a_id" PRIMARY KEY, btree (a_id)
... more indexes on other columns
xxx => \d b
Table "xxx.b"
Column | Type | Modifiers
--------------------------+------------------------+-----------
b_id | integer | not null
a_id | integer | not null
c_id | integer | not null
... more columns
Indexes:
"b_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (b_id)
"i_b_a_id" btree (a_id)
"i_b_c_id" btree (c_id)
xxx=> \d c
Table "xxx.c"
Column | Type | Modifiers
---------------+------------------------+-----------
c_id | integer | not null
name | character varying(200) |
... more columns
Indexes:
"c_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (c_id)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: cjames@modgraph-usa.com
Subject: Re: Cost Issue - How do I force a Hash Join
In-Reply-To: <43FAAB06.5030901@modgraph-usa.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
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