Re: Erratically behaving query needs optimization
От | Luís Roberto Weck |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Erratically behaving query needs optimization |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9736f758-d702-ee9a-2988-53762c73c3e3@siscobra.com.br обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Erratically behaving query needs optimization (Barbu Paul - Gheorghe <barbu.paul.gheorghe@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Erratically behaving query needs optimization
(MichaelDBA <MichaelDBA@sqlexec.com>)
Re: Erratically behaving query needs optimization (Barbu Paul - Gheorghe <barbu.paul.gheorghe@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Em 20/08/2019 10:54, Barbu Paul - Gheorghe escreveu: > Hello, > I'm running "PostgreSQL 11.2, compiled by Visual C++ build 1914, > 64-bit" and I have a query that runs several times per user action > (9-10 times). > The query takes a long time to execute, specially at first, due to > cold caches I think, but the performance varies greatly during a run > of the application (while applying the said action by the user several > times). > > My tables are only getting bigger with time, not much DELETEs and even > less UPDATEs as far as I can tell. > > Problematic query: > > EXPLAIN (ANALYZE,BUFFERS) > SELECT DISTINCT ON (results.attribute_id) results.timestamp, > results.data FROM results > JOIN scheduler_operation_executions ON > scheduler_operation_executions.id = results.operation_execution_id > JOIN scheduler_task_executions ON scheduler_task_executions.id = > scheduler_operation_executions.task_execution_id > WHERE scheduler_task_executions.device_id = 97 > AND results.data <> '<NullData/>' > AND results.data IS NOT NULL > AND results.object_id = 1955 > AND results.attribute_id IN (4, 5) -- possibly a longer list here > AND results.data_access_result = 'SUCCESS' > ORDER BY results.attribute_id, results.timestamp DESC > LIMIT 2 -- limit by the length of the attributes list > > In words: I want the latest (ORDER BY results.timestamp DESC) results > of a device (scheduler_task_executions.device_id = 97 - hence the > joins results -> scheduler_operation_executions -> > scheduler_task_executions) > for a given object and attributes with some additional constraints on > the data column. But I only want the latest attributes for which we > have results, hence the DISTINCT ON (results.attribute_id) and LIMIT. > > First run: https://explain.depesz.com/s/qh4C > Limit (cost=157282.39..157290.29 rows=2 width=54) (actual > time=44068.166..44086.970 rows=2 loops=1) > Buffers: shared hit=215928 read=85139 > -> Unique (cost=157282.39..157298.20 rows=4 width=54) (actual > time=44068.164..44069.301 rows=2 loops=1) > Buffers: shared hit=215928 read=85139 > -> Sort (cost=157282.39..157290.29 rows=3162 width=54) > (actual time=44068.161..44068.464 rows=2052 loops=1) > Sort Key: results.attribute_id, results."timestamp" DESC > Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 641kB > Buffers: shared hit=215928 read=85139 > -> Gather (cost=62853.04..157098.57 rows=3162 > width=54) (actual time=23518.745..44076.385 rows=4102 loops=1) > Workers Planned: 2 > Workers Launched: 2 > Buffers: shared hit=215928 read=85139 > -> Nested Loop (cost=61853.04..155782.37 > rows=1318 width=54) (actual time=23290.514..43832.223 rows=1367 > loops=3) > Buffers: shared hit=215928 read=85139 > -> Parallel Hash Join > (cost=61852.61..143316.27 rows=24085 width=4) (actual > time=23271.275..40018.451 rows=19756 loops=3) > Hash Cond: > (scheduler_operation_executions.task_execution_id = > scheduler_task_executions.id) > Buffers: shared hit=6057 read=85139 > -> Parallel Seq Scan on > scheduler_operation_executions (cost=0.00..74945.82 rows=2482982 > width=8) (actual time=7.575..15694.435 rows=1986887 loops=3) > Buffers: shared hit=2996 read=47120 > -> Parallel Hash > (cost=61652.25..61652.25 rows=16029 width=4) (actual > time=23253.337..23253.337 rows=13558 loops=3) > Buckets: 65536 Batches: 1 > Memory Usage: 2144kB > Buffers: shared hit=2977 read=38019 > -> Parallel Seq Scan on > scheduler_task_executions (cost=0.00..61652.25 rows=16029 width=4) > (actual time=25.939..23222.174 rows=13558 loops=3) > Filter: (device_id = 97) > Rows Removed by Filter: 1308337 > Buffers: shared hit=2977 read=38019 > -> Index Scan using > index_operation_execution_id_asc on results (cost=0.43..0.51 rows=1 > width=58) (actual time=0.191..0.191 rows=0 loops=59269) > Index Cond: (operation_execution_id = > scheduler_operation_executions.id) > Filter: ((data IS NOT NULL) AND (data > <> '<NullData/>'::text) AND (attribute_id = ANY ('{4,5}'::integer[])) > AND (object_id = 1955) AND (data_access_result = 'SUCCESS'::text)) > Rows Removed by Filter: 0 > Buffers: shared hit=209871 > Planning Time: 29.295 ms > Execution Time: 44087.365 ms > > > Second run: https://explain.depesz.com/s/uy9f > Limit (cost=157282.39..157290.29 rows=2 width=54) (actual > time=789.363..810.440 rows=2 loops=1) > Buffers: shared hit=216312 read=84755 > -> Unique (cost=157282.39..157298.20 rows=4 width=54) (actual > time=789.361..789.535 rows=2 loops=1) > Buffers: shared hit=216312 read=84755 > -> Sort (cost=157282.39..157290.29 rows=3162 width=54) > (actual time=789.361..789.418 rows=2052 loops=1) > Sort Key: results.attribute_id, results."timestamp" DESC > Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 641kB > Buffers: shared hit=216312 read=84755 > -> Gather (cost=62853.04..157098.57 rows=3162 > width=54) (actual time=290.356..808.454 rows=4102 loops=1) > Workers Planned: 2 > Workers Launched: 2 > Buffers: shared hit=216312 read=84755 > -> Nested Loop (cost=61853.04..155782.37 > rows=1318 width=54) (actual time=238.313..735.472 rows=1367 loops=3) > Buffers: shared hit=216312 read=84755 > -> Parallel Hash Join > (cost=61852.61..143316.27 rows=24085 width=4) (actual > time=237.966..677.975 rows=19756 loops=3) > Hash Cond: > (scheduler_operation_executions.task_execution_id = > scheduler_task_executions.id) > Buffers: shared hit=6441 read=84755 > -> Parallel Seq Scan on > scheduler_operation_executions (cost=0.00..74945.82 rows=2482982 > width=8) (actual time=0.117..234.279 rows=1986887 loops=3) > Buffers: shared hit=3188 read=46928 > -> Parallel Hash > (cost=61652.25..61652.25 rows=16029 width=4) (actual > time=236.631..236.631 rows=13558 loops=3) > Buckets: 65536 Batches: 1 > Memory Usage: 2144kB > Buffers: shared hit=3169 read=37827 > -> Parallel Seq Scan on > scheduler_task_executions (cost=0.00..61652.25 rows=16029 width=4) > (actual time=0.132..232.758 rows=13558 loops=3) > Filter: (device_id = 97) > Rows Removed by Filter: 1308337 > Buffers: shared hit=3169 read=37827 > -> Index Scan using > index_operation_execution_id_asc on results (cost=0.43..0.51 rows=1 > width=58) (actual time=0.003..0.003 rows=0 loops=59269) > Index Cond: (operation_execution_id = > scheduler_operation_executions.id) > Filter: ((data IS NOT NULL) AND (data > <> '<NullData/>'::text) AND (attribute_id = ANY ('{4,5}'::integer[])) > AND (object_id = 1955) AND (data_access_result = 'SUCCESS'::text)) > Rows Removed by Filter: 0 > Buffers: shared hit=209871 > Planning Time: 1.787 ms > Execution Time: 810.634 ms > > You can see that the second run takes less than one second to run... > which is 43 seconds better than the first try, just by re-running the > query. > Other runs take maybe 1s, 3s, still a long time. > > How can I improve it to be consistently fast (is it possible to get to > several milliseconds?)? > What I don't really understand is why the nested loop has 3 loops > (three joined tables)? > And why does the first index scan indicate ~60k loops? And does it > really work? It doesn't seem to filter out any rows. > > Should I add an index only on (attribute_id, object_id)? And maybe > data_access_result? > Does it make sens to add it on a text column (results.data)? > > My tables: > https://gist.githubusercontent.com/paulbarbu/0d36271d710349d8fb6102d9a466bb54/raw/7a6946ba7c2adec5b87ed90f343f1aff37432d21/gistfile1.txt > > As you can see from the gist the foreign keys are indexed. Other > indices were added to speed up other queries. > Other relevant information (my tables have 3+ millions of rows, not > very big I think?), additional info with regards to size also included > below. > This query has poor performance on two PCs (both running off of HDDs) > so I think it has more to do with my indices and query than Postgres > config & hardware, will post those if necessary. > > > Size info: > SELECT relname, relpages, reltuples, relallvisible, relkind, relnatts, > relhassubclass, reloptions, pg_table_size(oid) FROM pg_class WHERE > relname IN ('results', 'scheduler_operation_executions', > 'scheduler_task_executions'); > -[ RECORD 1 ]--+------------------------------- > relname | results > relpages | 65922 > reltuples | 3.17104e+06 > relallvisible | 65922 > relkind | r > relnatts | 9 > relhassubclass | f > reloptions | > pg_table_size | 588791808 > -[ RECORD 2 ]--+------------------------------- > relname | scheduler_operation_executions > relpages | 50116 > reltuples | 5.95916e+06 > relallvisible | 50116 > relkind | r > relnatts | 8 > relhassubclass | f > reloptions | > pg_table_size | 410697728 > -[ RECORD 3 ]--+------------------------------- > relname | scheduler_task_executions > relpages | 40996 > reltuples | 3.966e+06 > relallvisible | 40996 > relkind | r > relnatts | 12 > relhassubclass | f > reloptions | > pg_table_size | 335970304 > > Thanks for your time! > > -- > Barbu Paul - Gheorghe > Can you create an index on scheduler_task_executions.device_id and run it again?
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: