pg.ddx.io pgsql-sql@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedScalar in a range (but textual not numeric)
11+ messages / 5 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric)
@ 2004-02-25 19:18 Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
2004-02-25 20:36 ` Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
2004-02-25 21:32 ` Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2004-02-26 14:55 ` Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Edmund Bacon <ebacon@onesystem.com>
0 siblings, 3 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Richard Huxton @ 2004-02-25 19:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-sql
Large table representing non-overlapping blocks:
blocks(id int4, min varchar, max varchar)
SELECT * FROM blocks WHERE 'ABCDE' BETWEEN min AND max;
The estimator gets the wrong plan because it doesn't realise there's (at most)
only one block that can match.
Can't use any of the geometry related types since we've got text here not
numbers. Nothing in the archives seems quite right (AFAICT).
Any smart ideas? I'm happy to trade time when updating the blocks table
against lookup speed.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric)
2004-02-25 19:18 Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
@ 2004-02-25 20:36 ` Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
2004-02-25 20:56 ` Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
2 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Richard Huxton @ 2004-02-25 20:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-sql
On Wednesday 25 February 2004 19:18, Richard Huxton wrote:
> Large table representing non-overlapping blocks:
>
> blocks(id int4, min varchar, max varchar)
>
> SELECT * FROM blocks WHERE 'ABCDE' BETWEEN min AND max;
>
> The estimator gets the wrong plan because it doesn't realise there's (at
> most) only one block that can match.
Well, replying to myself (just one of my many bad habits) the best I've come
up with so far is to add another column with a trimmed string and do a direct
comparison against that too:
SELECT * FROM blocks WHERE substring('ABCDE',1,3)=block_segment AND 'ABCDE'
BETWEEN min AND max
This gives the planner something to work with, and on 7.4 it even renders it
down to 'ABC' first too (nice :-)
That's not quite the same though, because it means I need to split
ABCAA..ABDBB into ABCAA..ABCZZ and ABDAA..ABDZZ but it's close enough unless
someone is feeling clever this evening.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric)
2004-02-25 19:18 Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
2004-02-25 20:36 ` Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
@ 2004-02-25 20:56 ` Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
2004-02-25 22:10 ` Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Joe Conway @ 2004-02-25 20:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>; +Cc: pgsql-sql
Richard Huxton wrote:
> That's not quite the same though, because it means I need to split
> ABCAA..ABDBB into ABCAA..ABCZZ and ABDAA..ABDZZ but it's close enough unless
> someone is feeling clever this evening.
>
Would (a series of) partial indexes help?
Joe
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric)
2004-02-25 19:18 Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
2004-02-25 20:36 ` Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
2004-02-25 20:56 ` Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
@ 2004-02-25 22:10 ` Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Richard Huxton @ 2004-02-25 22:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>; +Cc: pgsql-sql
On Wednesday 25 February 2004 20:56, Joe Conway wrote:
> Richard Huxton wrote:
> > That's not quite the same though, because it means I need to split
> > ABCAA..ABDBB into ABCAA..ABCZZ and ABDAA..ABDZZ but it's close enough
> > unless someone is feeling clever this evening.
>
> Would (a series of) partial indexes help?
Not here - it's the irritation of splitting my single range into two at some
arbitrary boundary that bugs me with this solution.
Ah well - if it was that straightforward, I wouldn't be able to charge for it.
Thanks Joe
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric)
2004-02-25 19:18 Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
@ 2004-02-25 21:32 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2004-02-25 22:08 ` Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
2 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2004-02-25 21:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>; +Cc: pgsql-sql
Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com> writes:
> Large table representing non-overlapping blocks:
> blocks(id int4, min varchar, max varchar)
> SELECT * FROM blocks WHERE 'ABCDE' BETWEEN min AND max;
> The estimator gets the wrong plan because it doesn't realise there's
> (at most) only one block that can match.
Even if it did realize that, it couldn't do much, because this query
isn't indexable as it stands.
I wonder whether you could adapt the "line segment" datatype
(see contrib/seg/) into a sort of "text segment" thingy and use the
GiST indexing support on that. You'd have a query like
WHERE min_max_object overlaps-operator 'ABCDE'
and the overlaps operator would be a GiST-indexable one.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric)
2004-02-25 19:18 Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
2004-02-25 21:32 ` Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
@ 2004-02-25 22:08 ` Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
2004-02-25 22:32 ` Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Richard Huxton @ 2004-02-25 22:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; +Cc: pgsql-sql
On Wednesday 25 February 2004 21:32, Tom Lane wrote:
> Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com> writes:
> > Large table representing non-overlapping blocks:
> > blocks(id int4, min varchar, max varchar)
> >
> > SELECT * FROM blocks WHERE 'ABCDE' BETWEEN min AND max;
> >
> > The estimator gets the wrong plan because it doesn't realise there's
> > (at most) only one block that can match.
>
> Even if it did realize that, it couldn't do much, because this query
> isn't indexable as it stands.
Well, it is in the sense that an index can be used. Here I'd defined pkey as
(min,max,id) and set enable_seqscan=off
-> Index Scan using prnblock_range_pkey on prnblock_range
(cost=0.00..1403.99 rows=892 width=33) (actual time=23.88..24.07 rows=1
loops=1)
Index Cond: (('09050091234'::character varying >= pr_min) AND
('09050091234'::character varying <= pr_max))
Of course, what I really want is a "varchar_range" type with its own
indexing...
> I wonder whether you could adapt the "line segment" datatype
> (see contrib/seg/) into a sort of "text segment" thingy and use the
> GiST indexing support on that. You'd have a query like
> WHERE min_max_object overlaps-operator 'ABCDE'
> and the overlaps operator would be a GiST-indexable one.
Yep, that's the sort of thing I was wanting, just not worth the trouble in
this case. It's not the heart of the system, only a corner case.
Thanks anyway Tom
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric)
2004-02-25 19:18 Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
2004-02-25 21:32 ` Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2004-02-25 22:08 ` Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
@ 2004-02-25 22:32 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2004-02-25 22:37 ` Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2004-02-25 22:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>; +Cc: pgsql-sql
Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com> writes:
> On Wednesday 25 February 2004 21:32, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> SELECT * FROM blocks WHERE 'ABCDE' BETWEEN min AND max;
>>
>> Even if it did realize that, it couldn't do much, because this query
>> isn't indexable as it stands.
> Well, it is in the sense that an index can be used. Here I'd defined pkey as
> (min,max,id) and set enable_seqscan=off
> -> Index Scan using prnblock_range_pkey on prnblock_range
> (cost=0.00..1403.99 rows=892 width=33) (actual time=23.88..24.07 rows=1
> loops=1)
> Index Cond: (('09050091234'::character varying >= pr_min) AND
> ('09050091234'::character varying <= pr_max))
You're mistaking "I can put all the relevant columns into an index" for
"this index is useful". There's a reason why the planner will not use
that plan without a gun to its head, and it is that you have only a
one-sided restriction on the first index column. At runtime, the index
machinery will have to scan starting at pr_min = '09050091234' and
continuing clear to the end of the index. It will avoid visiting the
heap for the index entries past the desired range, but since it does not
understand that there's any relation between the pr_min and pr_max
columns, it won't realize that it doesn't need to continue the index
scan past the first failure of '09050091234' <= pr_max. For all it
knows, there could be lots of entries with larger pr_min and smaller
pr_max.
Now that I think about it, you can exploit your knowledge that the
min/max subranges don't overlap without building a new index type.
What you have to do is put the knowledge into the query. Instead of
WHERE 'ABCDE' >= pr_min AND 'ABCDE' <= pr_max
try writing
WHERE 'ABCDE' >= pr_min AND 'ABCDE' <= pr_max
AND pr_min < (SELECT pr_min FROM table
WHERE pr_min > 'ABCDE'
ORDER BY pr_min LIMIT 1)
The idea here is to add an upper bound on pr_min to the index scan
conditions, so that the scan can stop short of the end of the index.
The sub-SELECT will efficiently use the index to pick out a safe
stopping point.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric)
2004-02-25 19:18 Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
2004-02-25 21:32 ` Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2004-02-25 22:08 ` Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
2004-02-25 22:32 ` Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
@ 2004-02-25 22:37 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2004-02-26 08:03 ` Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2004-02-25 22:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>; +Cc: pgsql-sql
I wrote:
> try writing
> WHERE 'ABCDE' >= pr_min AND 'ABCDE' <= pr_max
> AND pr_min < (SELECT pr_min FROM table
> WHERE pr_min > 'ABCDE'
> ORDER BY pr_min LIMIT 1)
> The idea here is to add an upper bound on pr_min to the index scan
> conditions, so that the scan can stop short of the end of the index.
Argh, got that backwards. What you are missing is a *lower* bound on
pr_min, and the index scan will therefore run from the start of the
index up to pr_min = 'ABCDE'. So reverse the sense of the added test:
AND pr_min >= (SELECT pr_min FROM table
WHERE pr_min <= 'ABCDE'
ORDER BY pr_min DESC LIMIT 1)
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric)
2004-02-25 19:18 Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
2004-02-25 21:32 ` Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2004-02-25 22:08 ` Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
2004-02-25 22:32 ` Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2004-02-25 22:37 ` Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
@ 2004-02-26 08:03 ` Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Richard Huxton @ 2004-02-26 08:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; +Cc: pgsql-sql
On Wednesday 25 February 2004 22:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > try writing
> > WHERE 'ABCDE' >= pr_min AND 'ABCDE' <= pr_max
> > AND pr_min < (SELECT pr_min FROM table
> > WHERE pr_min > 'ABCDE'
> > ORDER BY pr_min LIMIT 1)
> > The idea here is to add an upper bound on pr_min to the index scan
> > conditions, so that the scan can stop short of the end of the index.
>
> Argh, got that backwards. What you are missing is a *lower* bound on
> pr_min, and the index scan will therefore run from the start of the
> index up to pr_min = 'ABCDE'. So reverse the sense of the added test:
>
> AND pr_min >= (SELECT pr_min FROM table
> WHERE pr_min <= 'ABCDE'
> ORDER BY pr_min DESC LIMIT 1)
Aha! I was trying something like that, but couldn't get it quite right and it
was getting too late for me to see clearly.
Thanks Tom, I'll have a play with this later today.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric)
2004-02-25 19:18 Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
@ 2004-02-26 14:55 ` Edmund Bacon <ebacon@onesystem.com>
2004-02-26 15:26 ` Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
2 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Edmund Bacon @ 2004-02-26 14:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-sql
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 12:18, Richard Huxton wrote:
As a complete aside:
Is there any advantage to use varchar instead of type text?
Thanks
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric)
2004-02-25 19:18 Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
2004-02-26 14:55 ` Re: Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Edmund Bacon <ebacon@onesystem.com>
@ 2004-02-26 15:26 ` Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Bruno Wolff III @ 2004-02-26 15:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Edmund Bacon <ebacon@onesystem.com>; +Cc: pgsql-sql
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 07:55:14 -0700,
Edmund Bacon <ebacon@onesystem.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 12:18, Richard Huxton wrote:
>
> As a complete aside:
>
> Is there any advantage to use varchar instead of type text?
Only if there is a business rule that limits the length of the data.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-02-26 15:26 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-02-25 19:18 Scalar in a range (but textual not numeric) Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
2004-02-25 20:36 ` Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
2004-02-25 20:56 ` Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
2004-02-25 22:10 ` Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
2004-02-25 21:32 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2004-02-25 22:08 ` Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
2004-02-25 22:32 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2004-02-25 22:37 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2004-02-26 08:03 ` Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
2004-02-26 14:55 ` Edmund Bacon <ebacon@onesystem.com>
2004-02-26 15:26 ` Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
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