pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Adarsh Sharma <adarsh.sharma@orkash.com>
To: Vitalii Tymchyshyn <tivv00@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Re-Reason of Slowness of Query
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:01:26 +0530
Message-ID: <4D89DA0E.4060908@orkash.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D89D7C2.3040307@gmail.com>
References: <4D89BABF.4080806@orkash.com>
	<4D89BCD6.6040604@gmail.com>
	<4D89C704.5080603@orkash.com>
	<c054efdf315e1df9376b2646077ef805.squirrel@sq.gransy.com>
	<AANLkTinQTQ+g=fOokh6i7ZqBLoTSVpX_Mfy-7Lo8ndX4@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D89D7AD.4050503@orkash.com>
	<4D89D7C2.3040307@gmail.com>

Vitalii Tymchyshyn wrote:
> 23.03.11 13:21, Adarsh Sharma ???????(??):
>> Thank U all, for U'r Nice Support.
>>
>> Let me Conclude the results, below results are obtained after finding 
>> the needed queries :
>>
>> *First Option :
>>
>> *pdc_uima=# explain analyze select distinct(p.crawled_page_id) from 
>> page_content p left join clause2 c on (p.crawled_page_id = 
>> c.source_id) where (c.source_id is null);
>>                                                                      
>> QUERY 
>> PLAN                                                                      
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  HashAggregate  (cost=100278.16..104104.75 rows=382659 width=8) 
>> (actual time=87927.000..87930.084 rows=72 loops=1)
>>    ->  Nested Loop Anti Join  (cost=0.00..99320.46 rows=383079 
>> width=8) (actual time=0.191..87926.546 rows=74 loops=1)
>>          ->  Seq Scan on page_content p  (cost=0.00..87132.17 
>> rows=428817 width=8) (actual time=0.027..528.978 rows=428467 loops=1)
>>          ->  Index Scan using idx_clause2_source_id on clause2 c  
>> (cost=0.00..18.18 rows=781 width=4) (actual time=0.202..0.202 rows=1 
>> loops=428467)
>>                Index Cond: (p.crawled_page_id = c.source_id)
>>  Total runtime: 87933.882 ms :-(
>> (6 rows)
>>
>> *Second Option :
>>
>> *pdc_uima=# explain analyze select distinct(p.crawled_page_id) from 
>> page_content p
>> pdc_uima-#  where NOT EXISTS (select 1 from  clause2 c where 
>> c.source_id = p.crawled_page_id);
>>                                                                      
>> QUERY 
>> PLAN                                                                      
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  HashAggregate  (cost=100278.16..104104.75 rows=382659 width=8) 
>> (actual time=7047.259..7050.261 rows=72 loops=1)
>>    ->  Nested Loop Anti Join  (cost=0.00..99320.46 rows=383079 
>> width=8) (actual time=0.039..7046.826 rows=74 loops=1)
>>          ->  Seq Scan on page_content p  (cost=0.00..87132.17 
>> rows=428817 width=8) (actual time=0.008..388.976 rows=428467 loops=1)
>>          ->  Index Scan using idx_clause2_source_id on clause2 c  
>> (cost=0.00..18.18 rows=781 width=4) (actual time=0.013..0.013 rows=1 
>> loops=428467)
>>                Index Cond: (c.source_id = p.crawled_page_id)
>>  Total runtime: 7054.074 ms :-)
>> (6 rows)
>>
>
> Actually the plans are equal, so I suppose it depends on what were run 
> first :). Slow query operates with data mostly on disk, while fast one 
> with data in memory.

Yes U 'r absolutely right, if I run it again, it display the output as :

pdc_uima=# explain analyze select distinct(p.crawled_page_id) from 
page_content p left join clause2 c on (p.crawled_page_id = c.source_id) 
where (c.source_id is null);

                                                                    
QUERY 
PLAN                                                                     
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 HashAggregate  (cost=100278.16..104104.75 rows=382659 width=8) (actual 
time=7618.452..7621.427 rows=72 loops=1)
   ->  Nested Loop Anti Join  (cost=0.00..99320.46 rows=383079 width=8) 
(actual time=0.131..7618.043 rows=74 loops=1)
         ->  Seq Scan on page_content p  (cost=0.00..87132.17 
rows=428817 width=8) (actual time=0.020..472.811 rows=428467 loops=1)
         ->  Index Scan using idx_clause2_source_id on clause2 c  
(cost=0.00..18.18 rows=781 width=4) (actual time=0.015..0.015 rows=1 
loops=428467)
               Index Cond: (p.crawled_page_id = c.source_id)
 Total runtime: 7637.132 ms
(6 rows)

I let U know after a fresh start (session ).
Then the true result comes and if further tuning required can be performed.

Best Regards, Adarsh
>
> Best regards, Vitalii Tymchyshyn

view thread (19+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <4D89DA0E.4060908@orkash.com>
Permalink:  ../4D89DA0E.4060908@orkash.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/4D89DA0E.4060908@orkash.com

 · 

reply

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: adarsh.sharma@orkash.com, tivv00@gmail.com
  Subject: Re: Re-Reason of Slowness of Query
  In-Reply-To: <4D89DA0E.4060908@orkash.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