From: Shaun Thomas <sthomas@optionshouse.com>
To: Pedro Jiménez <p.jimenez@ismsolar.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: limit order by performance issue
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:28:15 -0500
Message-ID: <507DB54F.7000005@optionshouse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <507C4B8E.3010806@ismsolar.com>
References: <507C4B8E.3010806@ismsolar.com>
On 10/15/2012 12:44 PM, Pedro Jiménez wrote:
> select var_value from ism_floatvalues where id_signal = 29660 order by
> time_stamp desc limit 1;
Well, we'd have to see an EXPLAIN plan to really know what's going on
here, but it often boils down to the planner being overly optimistic
when low limits are specified. I bet you have an index on time_stamp,
don't you?
In that case, the planner would reverse index-scan that index,
estimating that the chances of it finding ID 29660 are less expensive
than fetching all of the rows that match the ID directly, and throwing
away all but 1 row. Remember, it would have to read all of those values
to know which is the most recent.
You can fix this a couple of ways:
1. Put a two-column index on these values:
CREATE INDEX idx_ordered_signal
ON ism_floatvalues (id_signal, time_stamp DESC);
Which turns any request for that particular combo into a single index fetch.
2. You can trick the planner by introducing an optimization fence:
SELECT var_value
FROM (
SELECT var_value, time_stamp
FROM ism_floatvalues
WHERE id_signal = 29660
OFFSET 0
)
ORDER BY time_stamp DESC
LIMIT 1;
Quite a few people will probably grouse at me for giving you that as an
option, but it does work better than LIMIT 1 more often than it probably
should.
--
Shaun Thomas
OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604
312-444-8534
sthomas@optionshouse.com
______________________________________________
See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email
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: sthomas@optionshouse.com, p.jimenez@ismsolar.com
Subject: Re: limit order by performance issue
In-Reply-To: <507DB54F.7000005@optionshouse.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