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 16:06:26 +1300
Message-ID: <54B88032.7020206@catalyst.net.nz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54B87820.3090101@catalyst.net.nz>
References: <54B83F70.7080004@agliodbs.com>
<54B85D32.7090106@catalyst.net.nz>
<54B87820.3090101@catalyst.net.nz>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
On 16/01/15 15:32, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> 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...
>
A bit more poking about shows that the major factor (which this fake
dataset anyway) is the default for effective_cache_size (changes from
128MB to 4GB in 9.4). Increasing this makes 9.2 start using the
files_in_flight index in a plain index scan too.
Josh - might be worth experimenting with this parameter.
regards
Mark
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
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: <54B88032.7020206@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