Re: Slow SELECT by primary key? Postgres 9.1.2

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От John Mudd
Тема Re: Slow SELECT by primary key? Postgres 9.1.2
Дата
Msg-id CAGDMk9GK+H+wODz8KQ7iyOji5SpvLtgPOaRR3xD_zvX7bguAug@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Slow SELECT by primary key? Postgres 9.1.2  (Evgeny Shishkin <itparanoia@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Slow SELECT by primary key? Postgres 9.1.2
Список pgsql-performance
Thanks, that's easy enough to test. Didn't seem to help though.


test=# REINDEX index test_select_pkey;
REINDEX
test=# VACUUM ANALYZE test_select ;
VACUUM


(stopped postgres; reset O/S cache; started postgres)

test=# explain analyze SELECT * FROM test_select WHERE key1 >= 500000 ORDER BY key1, key2, key3, id LIMIT 1;
                                                              QUERY PLAN                                                              
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Limit  (cost=0.00..0.08 rows=1 width=21) (actual time=16.368..16.369 rows=1 loops=1)
   ->  Index Scan using my_key on test_select  (cost=0.00..41981.16 rows=501333 width=21) (actual time=16.366..16.366 rows=1 loops=1)
         Index Cond: (key1 >= 500000)
 Total runtime: 16.444 ms


(stopped postgres; reset O/S cache; started postgres)

test=# explain analyze SELECT * FROM test_select WHERE id = 500000;
                                                           QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Index Scan using test_select_pkey on test_select  (cost=0.00..8.36 rows=1 width=21) (actual time=23.072..23.074 rows=1 loops=1)
   Index Cond: (id = 500000)
 Total runtime: 23.192 ms




On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Evgeny Shishkin <itparanoia@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 27, 2013, at 6:02 PM, John Mudd <johnbmudd@gmail.com> wrote:

> Postgres 9.1.2 on Ubuntu 12.04
>
> Any reason why a select by primary key would be slower than a select that includes an ORDER BY? I was really hoping using the primary key would give me a boost.
>

You created my_key after data loading, and PK was there all the time.
If you REINDEX PK, i bet it will be as fast.

> I stopped the server and cleared the O/S cache using "sync; echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches" between the runs.
>
>
>
> test=# VACUUM ANALYZE test_select;
> VACUUM
>
> (stopped postgres; reset O/S cache; started postgres)
>
> test=# explain analyze SELECT * FROM test_select WHERE key1 >= 500000 ORDER BY key1, key2, key3, id LIMIT 1;
>                                                               QUERY PLAN
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Limit  (cost=0.00..0.08 rows=1 width=21) (actual time=12.599..12.600 rows=1 loops=1)
>    ->  Index Scan using my_key on test_select  (cost=0.00..41895.49 rows=498724 width=21) (actual time=12.597..12.597 rows=1 loops=1)
>          Index Cond: (key1 >= 500000)
>  Total runtime: 12.678 ms
>
> (stopped postgres; reset O/S cache; started postgres)
>
> test=# explain analyze SELECT * FROM test_select WHERE id = 500000;
>                                                            QUERY PLAN
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Index Scan using test_select_pkey on test_select  (cost=0.00..8.36 rows=1 width=21) (actual time=31.396..31.398 rows=1 loops=1)
>    Index Cond: (id = 500000)
>  Total runtime: 31.504 ms
>
>
>
> Schema:
>
> test=# \d test_select
>                             Table "public.test_select"
>  Column |     Type     |                        Modifiers
> --------+--------------+----------------------------------------------------------
>  id     | integer      | not null default nextval('test_select_id_seq'::regclass)
>  key1   | integer      |
>  key2   | integer      |
>  key3   | integer      |
>  data   | character(4) |
> Indexes:
>     "test_select_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (id)
>     "my_key" btree (key1, key2, key3, id)
>
> test=#
>
>
>
> Sample data:
>
> test=# SELECT * FROM test_select LIMIT 10;
>  id |  key1  |  key2  |  key3  | data
> ----+--------+--------+--------+------
>   1 | 984966 | 283954 | 772063 | x
>   2 | 817668 | 393533 | 924888 | x
>   3 | 751039 | 798753 | 454309 | x
>   4 | 128505 | 329643 | 280553 | x
>   5 | 105600 | 257225 | 710015 | x
>   6 | 323891 | 615614 |  83206 | x
>   7 | 194054 |  63506 | 353171 | x
>   8 | 212068 | 881225 | 271804 | x
>   9 | 644180 |  26693 | 200738 | x
>  10 | 136586 | 498699 | 554417 | x
> (10 rows)
>
>
>
>
> Here's how I populated the table:
>
> import psycopg2
>
> conn = psycopg2.connect('dbname=test')
>
> cur = conn.cursor()
>
> def random_int():
>     n = 1000000
>     return random.randint(0,n)
>
> def random_key():
>     return random_int(), random_int(), random_int()
>
> def create_table():
>     cur.execute('''
>             DROP TABLE IF EXISTS test_select;
>
>             CREATE TABLE test_select (
>                 id                      SERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
>                 key1                    INTEGER,
>                 key2                    INTEGER,
>                 key3                    INTEGER,
>                 data                    char(4)
>             );
>         ''')
>     conn.commit()
>
>     n = 1000000
>     for i in range(n):
>         cur.execute("INSERT INTO test_select(key1, key2, key3, data) VALUES(%s, %s, %s, 'x')", random_key())
>     conn.commit()
>
>     cur.execute('CREATE INDEX my_key ON test_select(key1, key2, key3, id)')
>     conn.commit()
>
> create_table()
>


В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Evgeny Shishkin
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Slow SELECT by primary key? Postgres 9.1.2
Следующее
От: Evgeny Shishkin
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Slow SELECT by primary key? Postgres 9.1.2