Message-ID: <464E0715.7000601@sprocks.gotdns.com>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 15:05:41 -0500
From: Andrew Kroeger <andrew@sprocks.gotdns.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Tyrrill, Ed" <tyrrill_ed@emc.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Slow queries on big table
References: <A23190A408F7094FAF446C1538222F7603EE4245@avaexch01.avamar.com>
In-Reply-To: <A23190A408F7094FAF446C1538222F7603EE4245@avaexch01.avamar.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tyrrill, Ed wrote:
> mdsdb=# \d backup_location
>  Table "public.backup_location"
>   Column   |  Type   | Modifiers
> -----------+---------+-----------
>  record_id | bigint  | not null
>  backup_id | integer | not null
> Indexes:
>     "backup_location_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (record_id, backup_id)
>     "backup_location_rid" btree (record_id)
> Foreign-key constraints:
>     "backup_location_bfk" FOREIGN KEY (backup_id) REFERENCES
> backups(backup_id) ON DELETE CASCADE

[snip]

> mdsdb=# explain analyze select record_id from backup_location where
> backup_id = 1070;
>  
> QUERY PLAN
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
>  Index Scan using backup_location_pkey on backup_location
> (cost=0.00..1475268.53 rows=412394 width=8) (actual
> time=3318.057..1196723.915 rows=2752 loops=1)
>    Index Cond: (backup_id = 1070)
>  Total runtime: 1196725.617 ms
> (3 rows)

The "backup_location_rid" index on your table is not necessary.  The
primary key index on (record_id, backup_id) can be used by Postgres,
even if the query is only constrained by record_id.  See
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/indexes-multicolumn.html
for details.

The explain plan indicates that your query is filtered on backup_id, but
is using the primary key index on (record_id, backup_id).  Based on the
table definition, you do not have any good index for filtering on backup_id.

The explain plan also seems way off, as I would expect a sequential scan
would be used without a good index for backup_id.  Did you disable
sequential scans before running this query?  Have you altered any other
configuration or planner parameters?

As your "backup_location_rid" is not necessary, I would recommend
dropping that index and creating a new one on just backup_id.  This
should be a net wash on space, and the new index should make for a
straight index scan for the query you presented.  Don't forget to
analyze after changing the indexes.

Hope this helps.

Andrew