Re: Planner cost adjustments

On Tue, 2 Jun 2015 14:01:35 -0400
Daniel Begin <jfd553@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Here is a follow-up on the step-by-step procedure proposed by PT
>
> #1 - setup postgresql planner's cost estimate settings for my hardware.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> Current parameters values described in section 18.7.2 haven't been changed
> except for the effective_cache_size
> seq_page_cost = 1
> random_page_cost = 4
> cpu_tuple_cost = 0.01
> cpu_index_tuple_cost = 0.005
> cpu_operator_cost = 0.0025
> effective_cache_size = 10GB
>
> I did a bunch of tests on frequently used queries to see how well they
> perform - using SET enable_seqscan = ON/OFF.
> As described earlier in this tread, the planner use Seq Scan on tables even
> if using an Index Scan is in this case 5 times faster!
> Here are the logs of EXPLAIN ANALYSE on a query...

In an earlier message you mention that the drives are external to the
computer. I don't remember details, but external drives can be quite
dicey as far as performance goes, depending on the specific technlogy
(USB vs. external SATA vs. NAS, for example) as well as some pretty
wild variances between different brands of the same technology.
See:
http://www.databasesoup.com/2012/05/random-page-cost-revisited.html

As a result, I'm suspicious that the default values you're using for
random_page_cost and seq_page_cost are throwing things off becuase
your disks aren't performing like internally connected disks.

Correct me if I'm wrong on any of the assumptions I'm making here,
but I got the impression that you can tweak values and restart
Postgres without any hardship. If that's the case, I'm guessing that
raising seq_page_cost (possible to 2) will cause Postgres to make
better decisions about what are good plans. My suggestion is to try
some different values for those two settings, doing several tests
after each change, and see if you can find a set of values that
starts getting you good plans. It appears that the planner thinks
that it can get better performance by reading from the disk in
sequence than by picking random pages, and that makes me think that
the difference between seq_page_cost and random_page_cost is bigger
than the actual behavior of the drives.

More comments below.

> osmdump=# SET enable_seqscan = ON;
> osmdump=# EXPLAIN ANALYSE SELECT user_id, id AS changeset_id,closed FROM
> changesets WHERE changesets.user_id IN(SELECT id FROM sample.users);
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------
>  Hash Semi Join  (cost=21.50..819505.27 rows=726722 width=24) (actual
> time=1574.914..7444.938 rows=338568 loops=1)
>    Hash Cond: (changesets.user_id = users.id)
>    ->  Seq Scan on changesets  (cost=0.00..745407.22 rows=25139722 width=24)
> (actual time=0.002..4724.578 rows=25133929 loops=1)
>    ->  Hash  (cost=14.00..14.00 rows=600 width=8) (actual time=0.165..0.165
> rows=600 loops=1)
>          Buckets: 1024  Batches: 1  Memory Usage: 24kB
>          ->  Seq Scan on users  (cost=0.00..14.00 rows=600 width=8) (actual
> time=0.003..0.073 rows=600 loops=1)
>  Total runtime: 7658.715 ms
> (7 rows)
>
> osmdump=# SET enable_seqscan = OFF;
> osmdump=# EXPLAIN ANALYSE SELECT user_id, id AS changeset_id,closed FROM
> changesets WHERE changesets.user_id IN(SELECT id FROM sample.users);
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Nested Loop  (cost=10000000015.94..10001072613.45 rows=726722 width=24)
> (actual time=0.268..1490.515 rows=338568 loops=1)
>    ->  HashAggregate  (cost=10000000015.50..10000000021.50 rows=600 width=8)
> (actual time=0.207..0.531 rows=600 loops=1)
>          ->  Seq Scan on users  (cost=10000000000.00..10000000014.00
> rows=600 width=8) (actual time=0.003..0.037 rows=600 loops=1)
>    ->  Index Scan using changesets_useridndx on changesets
> (cost=0.44..1775.54 rows=1211 width=24) (actual time=0.038..2.357 rows=564
> loops=600
>          Index Cond: (user_id = users.id)
>  Total runtime: 1715.517 ms
> (6 rows)
>
>
> #2 - Run ANALYZE DATABASE and look at performance/planning improvement.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> I ran ANALYZE DATABASE then rerun the query. It did not produce any
> significant improvement according to the EXPLAIN ANALYSE below...
>
> osmdump=# SET enable_seqscan = ON;
> osmdump=# EXPLAIN ANALYSE SELECT user_id, id AS changeset_id,closed FROM
> changesets WHERE changesets.user_id IN(SELECT id FROM sample.users);
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------
>  Hash Semi Join  (cost=21.50..819511.42 rows=729133 width=24) (actual
> time=1538.100..7307.743 rows=338568 loops=1)
>    Hash Cond: (changesets.user_id = users.id)
>    ->  Seq Scan on changesets  (cost=0.00..745390.84 rows=25138084 width=24)
> (actual time=0.027..4620.691 rows=25133929 loops=1)
>    ->  Hash  (cost=14.00..14.00 rows=600 width=8) (actual time=0.300..0.300
> rows=600 loops=1)
>          Buckets: 1024  Batches: 1  Memory Usage: 24kB
>          ->  Seq Scan on users  (cost=0.00..14.00 rows=600 width=8) (actual
> time=0.022..0.187 rows=600 loops=1)
>  Total runtime: 7519.254 ms
> (7 rows)
>
> osmdump=# SET enable_seqscan = OFF;
> osmdump=# EXPLAIN ANALYSE SELECT user_id, id AS changeset_id,closed FROM
> changesets WHERE changesets.user_id IN(SELECT id FROM sample.users);
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Nested Loop  (cost=10000000015.94..10001090810.49 rows=729133 width=24)
> (actual time=0.268..1466.248 rows=338568 loops=1)
>    ->  HashAggregate  (cost=10000000015.50..10000000021.50 rows=600 width=8)
> (actual time=0.205..0.530 rows=600 loops=1)
>          ->  Seq Scan on users  (cost=10000000000.00..10000000014.00
> rows=600 width=8) (actual time=0.003..0.035 rows=600 loops=1)
>    ->  Index Scan using changesets_useridndx on changesets
> (cost=0.44..1805.83 rows=1215 width=24) (actual time=0.036..2.314 rows=564
> loops=600)
>          Index Cond: (user_id = users.id)
>  Total runtime: 1677.447 ms
> (6 rows)
>
> #3 - Run EXPLAIN ANALYZE and look for discrepancies between the estimated
> and actual times
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> Looking at above results, there are obvious discrepancies between
> expected/actual rows and time!
> I dug a bit by exploring/trying to understand the different concepts
> explained in...
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/planner-stats.html
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/planner-stats-details.html
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/view-pg-stats.html
>
> Concerning discrepancies between the actual number of rows and predicted
> value, I looked at what pg_stats was saying about user_id in table
> changesets.
> Here are the values provided to the planner...
> Average_width=8
> histogram_bounds: the size of the bins varies between 50 and 150000, which
> make sense because if I had divided the column's values into groups of
> approximately equal population, I would have produced bins between 1 and
> 100000 (if sorted by frequency)
> n_distinct= 20686 (there is actually 464858 distinct values for user_id in
> the table)
> most_common_vals: values make sense (I checked the frequency count of a
> couple most common users_id)
> correlation=0.617782 (?)
> most_common_elems, most_common_elem_freqs and elem_count_histogram were
> empty
>
> At this point, I wonder if the assumptions behind the planner's statistics
> may produce such problems since the distribution of my data is not uniform
> but follows a power law (some user_id would return millions of records while
> others only one).
> This is the farthest I can go at this point. Maybe someone can provide me
> with more explanations regarding planner's behavior and ways to go further
> to make it work properly?

You may also benefit from increasing the statistics targets and
running ANALYZE again. It certainly looks like some of those stats are
pretty far off. Raising the statistics target will cause ANALYZE to
investigate more rows (which takes longer but might produce more
accurate results)

I suggest experimenting with the cost settings first, though.

--
Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com>