From: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
To: Michael Artz <mlartz@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Subselect query enhancement
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 17:23:47 +0000
Message-ID: <45C22223.1090909@archonet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e9c163070702010842ja639378v75e8c0eb757d9b72@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e9c163070702010842ja639378v75e8c0eb757d9b72@mail.gmail.com>
Michael Artz wrote:
> I'm needing help determining the best all-around query for the
> following situation.
Not sure whether such a beast exists, but...
> I have primary table that holds ip information
> and two other tables that hold event data for the specific IP in with
> a one-to-many mapping between them, ie:
[snip]
> There is quite a bit of commonality between the network_events and
> host_events schemas, but they do not currently share an ancestor.
> ip_info has about 13 million rows, the network_events table has about
> 30 million rows, and the host_events table has about 7 million rows.
> There are indexes on all the rows.
What indexes though. Do you have (name,ip) on the two event tables?
How selective is "name" - are there many different values or just a few?
If lots, it might be worth increasing the statistics gathered on that
column (ALTER COLUMN ... SET STATISTICS).
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/static/sql-altertable.html> The query that I would like to execute is to select all the rows of
> ip_info that have either network or host events that meet some
> criteria, i.e. name='blah'. I have 3 different possibilities that I
> have thought of to execute this.
>
> First, 2 'ip IN (SELECT ...)' statements joined by an OR:
>
> SELECT * FROM ip_info
> WHERE ip IN (SELECT ip FROM network_events WHERE name='blah')
> OR ip IN (SELECT ip FROM host_events WHERE name='blah');
>
> Next, 1 'ip IN (SELECT ... UNION SELECT ...) statement:
>
> SELECT * FROM ip_info
> WHERE ip IN (SELECT ip FROM network_events WHERE name='blah'
> UNION
> SELECT ip FROM host_events WHERE name='blah');
>
> Or, finally, the UNION statment with DISTINCTs:
>
> SELECT * FROM ip_info
> WHERE ip IN (SELECT DISTINCT ip FROM network_events WHERE name='blah'
> UNION
> SELECT DISTINCT ip FROM host_events WHERE name='blah');
>
> From what I have read, the UNION statement does an implicit DISTINCT,
> but I thought that doing it on each of the tables would result in
> slightly faster execution. Can you think of any other ways to
> implement the previous query?
You're right about removing duplicates. Not sure whether the DISTINCTs
on the sub-selects are helping or hindering. It'll probably depend on
your hardware, config, number of rows etc.
The only other way I can think of for this query is to UNION two JOINs.
Might interact well with the (name,ip) index I mentioned above.
> I have explained/analyzed all the queries but, unfortunately, they are
> on an isolated computer. The gist is that, for relatively
> low-incidence values of name, the UNION performs better, but for
> queries on a common name, the dual-subselect query performs better.
Difficult to say much without seeing the full explain analyse. Did the
row estimates look reasonable?
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
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: dev@archonet.com, mlartz@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Subselect query enhancement
In-Reply-To: <45C22223.1090909@archonet.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