From: Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: postgres performance list <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Strange choice of general index over partial index
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 15:32:00 +1300
Message-ID: <54B87820.3090101@catalyst.net.nz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54B85D32.7090106@catalyst.net.nz>
References: <54B83F70.7080004@agliodbs.com>
<54B85D32.7090106@catalyst.net.nz>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
On 16/01/15 13:37, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> On 16/01/15 11:30, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> This is an obfuscation and mock up, but:
>>
>> table files (
>> id serial pk,
>> filename text not null,
>> state varchar(20) not null
>> ... 18 more columns
>> )
>>
>> index file_state on (state)
>> (35GB in size)
>> index file_in_flight_state (state) where state in (
>> 'waiting','assigning', 'processing' )
>> (600MB in size)
>> ... 10 more indexes
>>
>> More important facts:
>> * state = 'done' 95% of the time. thereform the partial index
>> represents only 5% of the table
>> * all indexes and the table are very bloated
>> * server has 128GB RAM
>> * Version 9.2.
>>
>> Given this setup, I would expect the planner to *always* choose
>> file_in_flight_state over file_state for this query:
>>
>> SELECT id, filename FROM files WHERE state = 'waiting';
>>
>> ... and yet it keeps selecting file_state based on extremely small
>> changes to the stats. This is important because the same query, using
>> file_state, is 20X to 50X slower, because that index frequently gets
>> pushed out of memory.
>>
>> What am I missing? Or is this potentially a planner bug for costing?
>>
>
> Are you seeing a bitmapscan access plan? If so see if disabling it gets
> you a plan on the files_in_flight index. I'm seeing this scenario with a
> fake/generated dataset a bit like yours in 9.2 (9.5 uses the
> files_in_flight w/o any coercing).
>
FWIW: For me 9.2 and 9.3 (default config) generate plans like:
state=# EXPLAIN ANALYZE
SELECT id, filename
FROM files
WHERE state = 'processing';
QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bitmap Heap Scan on files (cost=3102.02..89228.68 rows=164333
width=15) (actual time=26.629..803.507 rows=166696 loops=1)
Recheck Cond: ((state)::text = 'processing'::text)
Rows Removed by Index Recheck: 7714304
-> Bitmap Index Scan on file_state (cost=0.00..3060.93 rows=164333
width=0) (actual time=25.682..25.682 rows=166696 loops=1)
Index Cond: ((state)::text = 'processing'::text)
Total runtime: 808.662 ms
(6 rows)
whereas 9.4 and 9.5 get:
QUERY
PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Index Scan using file_in_flight on files (cost=0.42..62857.39
rows=158330 width=15) (actual time=0.055..202.732 rows=166696 loops=1)
Index Cond: ((state)::text = 'processing'::text)
Planning time: 24.203 ms
Execution time: 208.926 ms
(4 rows)
This is with each version loading exactly the same dataset (generated by
the attached scripty). Obviously this is a vast simplification of what
Josh is looking at - but it is (hopefully) interesting that these later
versions are doing so much better...
Cheers
Mark
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performanceAttachments:
gendata.pl (application/x-perl, 1.1K) download
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: mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz, josh@agliodbs.com
Subject: Re: Strange choice of general index over partial index
In-Reply-To: <54B87820.3090101@catalyst.net.nz>
* 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