pg.ddx.io pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedPlanner performance in partitions
6+ messages / 4 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Planner performance in partitions
@ 2019-08-12 12:37 Piotr Włodarczyk <piotr.wlodarczyk@gnb.pl>
2019-08-12 19:05 ` Re: Planner performance in partitions Michael Lewis <mlewis@entrata.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Piotr Włodarczyk @ 2019-08-12 12:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org>
Hello,
We have partitioned tables in two levels. Both stages are partitioned in
ranges method. We see that planner and executor time was 10 time slower when
we asked main table rather than partitioned. My question is did planner and
executor are working optimal? I have doubts about it. Let's consider that
situation, because I think that in some ways (I think in more cases) planner
shoudl be more optimal. When we have table partitioned by key which is in
"where" clause we have guarantee that all rows we can find just in ONE
partition: contained in range or in default if exists. Planner show that
query should be executed just in one partition, but it takes a lot of time.
So my direct question is if planner is stopping searching for another
partition when he found one correct? Are partition ranges stored sorted and
searching method is optimal and is stopped after first (and only) hit?
I've noticed that increasing numbers of partition proportionally increase
planner time. Additionally having index on column that you are searching for
is adding extra time (one index add +/- 100% time for table). It's
understandable but optimizing planner and executor by ideas I wrote on first
paragraph automatically decrease time for searching indexes.
Reproduction:
1. ADD MAIN TABLE
-- Table: public.book
--DROP TABLE public.book;
CREATE TABLE public.book
(
id bigserial,
id_owner bigint NOT NULL,
added date NOT NULL
) PARTITION BY RANGE (id_owner)
WITH (
OIDS = FALSE
)
TABLESPACE pg_default;
ALTER TABLE public.book
OWNER to postgres;
2. ADD PARTITIONS (run first "a" variant, then drop table book, reconstruct
and run "variant"):
a. 1200 partitions:
https://gist.github.com/piotrwlodarczyk/4faa05729d1bdd3b5f5738a2a3faabc0
b. 6000 partitions:
https://gist.github.com/piotrwlodarczyk/2747e0984f521768f5d36ab2b382ea36
3. ANALYZE ON MAIN TABLE:
EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM public.book WHERE id_owner = 4;
a. My result for 1200 partitions:
https://gist.github.com/piotrwlodarczyk/500f20a0b6e2cac6d36ab88d4fea2c00
b. My result for 6000 partitions:
https://gist.github.com/piotrwlodarczyk/277687b21201340377116a18a3dd8be8
4. ANALYZE ON PARTITIONED TABLE (only on first level):
EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM public.book WHERE id_owner = 4;
a. My result for 1200:
https://gist.github.com/piotrwlodarczyk/4285907c68b34b486cbf39eb8ae5cf92
b. My result for 6000:
https://gist.github.com/piotrwlodarczyk/c157cc9321b6e1a1d0f900310f14f1cc
4. CONCLUSIONS
Planner time for select on public.book (main table) 1200 was 469.416 ms,
for 6000 was 2530.179 ms. It looks like time is linear to partition count.
That makes me sure that all partitions are checked instead of searching for
first that equals. Intentionally I've searching id_owner = 4 to make sure
that in both cases first partition should by marked as correct and planer
time should be constant. What is intereting too that real execution time was
+/- equal in both cases. Is executor working better than planner?
When we're asking on first level partition directly - time for planner
1200 is 58.736 ms, for 6000: 60.555 ms. We can say it's equal. Why? Because
planner don't have to search for another matching partitions because first
found can match. It's guaranteed by rule that say ranges in partitions
cannot override. Execution time in this case is 50 times faster!
Attachments:
smime.p7s (application/pkcs7-signature, 5.5K) download
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Planner performance in partitions
2019-08-12 12:37 Planner performance in partitions Piotr Włodarczyk <piotr.wlodarczyk@gnb.pl>
@ 2019-08-12 19:05 ` Michael Lewis <mlewis@entrata.com>
2019-08-12 19:24 ` Re: Planner performance in partitions MichaelDBA <MichaelDBA@sqlexec.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michael Lewis @ 2019-08-12 19:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Piotr Włodarczyk <piotr.wlodarczyk@gnb.pl>; +Cc: pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org>
"It is also important to consider the overhead of partitioning during query
planning and execution. The query planner is generally able to handle
partition hierarchies with *up to a few hundred partitions fairly well*,
provided that typical queries allow the query planner to prune all but a
small number of partitions. Planning times become longer and memory
consumption becomes higher as more partitions are added." (emphasis added)
--https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/ddl-partitioning.html
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Planner performance in partitions
2019-08-12 12:37 Planner performance in partitions Piotr Włodarczyk <piotr.wlodarczyk@gnb.pl>
2019-08-12 19:05 ` Re: Planner performance in partitions Michael Lewis <mlewis@entrata.com>
@ 2019-08-12 19:24 ` MichaelDBA <MichaelDBA@sqlexec.com>
2019-08-12 20:25 ` Re: Planner performance in partitions Michael Lewis <mlewis@entrata.com>
2019-08-12 22:25 ` Re: Planner performance in partitions David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: MichaelDBA @ 2019-08-12 19:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Lewis <mlewis@entrata.com>; +Cc: Piotr Włodarczyk <piotr.wlodarczyk@gnb.pl>; pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org>
Queries against tables with a lot of partitions (> 1000) start to incur
an increasing planning time duration even with the current version,
V11. V12 purportedly has fixed this problem, allowing thousands of
partitioned tables without a heavy planning cost. Can't seem to find
the threads on this topic, but there are out there. I personally noted
a gigantic increase in planning time once I got past 1500 partitioned
tables in V11.
On another note, hopefully they have fixed runtime partition pruning in
V12 since V11 introduced it but some query plans don't use it, so you
have to reconstruct some queries to sub queries to make it work correctly.
Regards,
Michael Vitale
Michael Lewis wrote on 8/12/2019 3:05 PM:
> "It is also important to consider the overhead of partitioning during
> query planning and execution. The query planner is generally able to
> handle partition hierarchies with */up to a few hundred partitions
> fairly well/*, provided that typical queries allow the query planner
> to prune all but a small number of partitions. Planning times become
> longer and memory consumption becomes higher as more partitions are
> added." (emphasis added)
>
> --https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/ddl-partitioning.html
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Planner performance in partitions
2019-08-12 12:37 Planner performance in partitions Piotr Włodarczyk <piotr.wlodarczyk@gnb.pl>
2019-08-12 19:05 ` Re: Planner performance in partitions Michael Lewis <mlewis@entrata.com>
2019-08-12 19:24 ` Re: Planner performance in partitions MichaelDBA <MichaelDBA@sqlexec.com>
@ 2019-08-12 20:25 ` Michael Lewis <mlewis@entrata.com>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michael Lewis @ 2019-08-12 20:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Piotr Włodarczyk <piotrwlodarczyk89@gmail.com>; +Cc: MichaelDBA <MichaelDBA@sqlexec.com>; Piotr Włodarczyk <piotr.wlodarczyk@gnb.pl>; pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org>
Thanks for clarifying your position and sharing the results you have seen.
That is impressive indeed.
It seems likely that waiting for v12 is needed since feature are not back
patched. Perhaps one of the contributors will confirm, but that is my
expectation.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Planner performance in partitions
2019-08-12 12:37 Planner performance in partitions Piotr Włodarczyk <piotr.wlodarczyk@gnb.pl>
2019-08-12 19:05 ` Re: Planner performance in partitions Michael Lewis <mlewis@entrata.com>
2019-08-12 19:24 ` Re: Planner performance in partitions MichaelDBA <MichaelDBA@sqlexec.com>
@ 2019-08-12 22:25 ` David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
2019-08-12 22:37 ` Re: Planner performance in partitions Michael Lewis <mlewis@entrata.com>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: David Rowley @ 2019-08-12 22:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Piotr Włodarczyk <piotrwlodarczyk89@gmail.com>; +Cc: MichaelDBA <MichaelDBA@sqlexec.com>; Michael Lewis <mlewis@entrata.com>; Piotr Włodarczyk <piotr.wlodarczyk@gnb.pl>; pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org>
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 08:03, Piotr Włodarczyk
<piotrwlodarczyk89@gmail.com> wrote:
> PostgreSQL11.5:
>
> select on main partition (public.book): planner: 60ms, execution: 5ms
> select on partitioned table (public.book_1-1000): planner: 2.7 ms, execution: 2,4 ms
>
> PostgreSQL 12B3:
>
> select on main partition (public.book): planner: 2,5ms , execution: 1,2ms
> select on partitioned table (public.book_1-1000): planner: 2.5 ms, execution: 1,2 ms
>
> So looking at above results we have two options:
>
> Wait for 12.0 stable version
> Wait for patches to 11 – PostgreSQL Team: can You do this?
You'll need to either reduce the number of partitions down to
something realistic or wait for 12.0.
The work done to speed up the planner with partitioned tables for v12
won't be going into v11.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Planner performance in partitions
2019-08-12 12:37 Planner performance in partitions Piotr Włodarczyk <piotr.wlodarczyk@gnb.pl>
2019-08-12 19:05 ` Re: Planner performance in partitions Michael Lewis <mlewis@entrata.com>
2019-08-12 19:24 ` Re: Planner performance in partitions MichaelDBA <MichaelDBA@sqlexec.com>
2019-08-12 22:25 ` Re: Planner performance in partitions David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
@ 2019-08-12 22:37 ` Michael Lewis <mlewis@entrata.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michael Lewis @ 2019-08-12 22:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>; +Cc: Piotr Włodarczyk <piotrwlodarczyk89@gmail.com>; MichaelDBA <MichaelDBA@sqlexec.com>; Piotr Włodarczyk <piotr.wlodarczyk@gnb.pl>; pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org>
Was there a reason to exceed 100-500 partitions in real life that pushed
you to do this test? Is there some issue you see when using 100 partitions
that is solved or reduced in severity by increasing to 1200 or 6000
partitions?
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-08-12 22:37 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-08-12 12:37 Planner performance in partitions Piotr Włodarczyk <piotr.wlodarczyk@gnb.pl>
2019-08-12 19:05 ` Michael Lewis <mlewis@entrata.com>
2019-08-12 19:24 ` MichaelDBA <MichaelDBA@sqlexec.com>
2019-08-12 20:25 ` Michael Lewis <mlewis@entrata.com>
2019-08-12 22:25 ` David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
2019-08-12 22:37 ` Michael Lewis <mlewis@entrata.com>
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