Re: [GENERAL] Different query plan used for the same query dependingon how parameters are passed

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От David Chapman
Тема Re: [GENERAL] Different query plan used for the same query dependingon how parameters are passed
Дата
Msg-id CAOsj6S9HiC4_UUvfwfXp-qUPAgHzSSM-5ti2Aogf=pBubT860A@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [GENERAL] Different query plan used for the same query dependingon how parameters are passed  (Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>)
Ответы Re: [GENERAL] Different query plan used for the same query depending on how parameters are passed  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-general
Дерево обсуждения
Version is 'PostgreSQL 9.5.4 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (GCC) 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-4), 64-bit'

Here is the output of EXPLAIN ANALYZE on the two queries.

Index Scan using test_index_t1_t2 on test  (cost=0.43..684.11 rows=71 width=245) (actual time=0.022..1.147 rows=99 loops=1)
  Index Cond: ((t1 = 'X'::bpchar) AND (t2 = ANY ('{2286575,2139022,2139030,2139032,1912037,860952,2139035,2139037,2278996,2139043,72062644919750111,2139045,2139047,1904847,2139049,2259635,2259633,2293287,2293281,2206950,2127033,2206952,2146439,2139064,2139066,2139070,2139074,2305447,2139077,2377493,2139079,2282669,2139083,2375729,2260985,2286579,2274454,2286583,2286582,2281512,2286588,2286591,2286592,1912217,2286596,2307845,2307846,2293294,287038,2293295,2293291,2356192,2317356,2356191,2356190,2356181,2356195,2356197,2389077,2356199,2356217,2374842,2374844,2374846,2337988,2374856,1950450,2374833,2374839,2282877,2374843,2374849,2374855,2390631,2028018,2374834,2139011,2139004,2344765,2344767,2390620,2393192,2344771,2344773,2344775,2390201,2344777,1893069,2344779,2344781,2344783,2374838,2304999,2344762,2344764,2344766,2344768,2344772,867138,2276706}'::text[])))
Planning time: 0.779 ms
Execution time: 1.417 ms

Seq Scan on test  (cost=0.00..403725.30 rows=1 width=245) (actual time=47.543..5362.518 rows=99 loops=1)
  Filter: (((t1)::text = 'X'::text) AND (t2 = ANY ('{2286575,2139022,2139030,2139032,1912037,860952,2139035,2139037,2278996,2139043,72062644919750111,2139045,2139047,1904847,2139049,2259635,2259633,2293287,2293281,2206950,2127033,2206952,2146439,2139064,2139066,2139070,2139074,2305447,2139077,2377493,2139079,2282669,2139083,2375729,2260985,2286579,2274454,2286583,2286582,2281512,2286588,2286591,2286592,1912217,2286596,2307845,2307846,2293294,287038,2293295,2293291,2356192,2317356,2356191,2356190,2356181,2356195,2356197,2389077,2356199,2356217,2374842,2374844,2374846,2337988,2374856,1950450,2374833,2374839,2282877,2374843,2374849,2374855,2390631,2028018,2374834,2139011,2139004,2344765,2344767,2390620,2393192,2344771,2344773,2344775,2390201,2344777,1893069,2344779,2344781,2344783,2374838,2304999,2344762,2344764,2344766,2344768,2344772,867138,2276706}'::text[])))
  Rows Removed by Filter: 2327145
Planning time: 0.179 ms
Execution time: 5362.558 ms

As it turns out t1 was actually defined as character(1) rather than text. I can see Postgres has cast the first parameter to bpchar in the first case but I guess Npgsql is explicitly sending it as type text, which bypasses the index.


On 16 May 2017 at 15:17, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:
On 05/16/2017 06:01 AM, David Chapman wrote:
I have a table that includes two text columns t1 and t2, and a composite index on these columns. When issuing a query of the following form:

SELECT * FROM test WHERE t1 = 'X' and t2 = ANY(ARRAY['Y1', 'Y2', ..])

I have observed that it will use the index and have reasonable performance if the whole query is passed as a single big string. However if it is parameterised (I'm using Npgsql) it switches to doing a sequence scan and performs terribly.

 What Postgres version?

Can you show the parametrized version?

What is the output if you add EXPLAIN ANALYZE to the beginning of the query?:

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/sql-explain.html




The table contains approx 2.3 million records and the query matches about 20k records (i.e. there are 20k 'Y' values in the array).

I have experimented with changing work_mem, preparing the statement in advance, ANALYZEing the table, none of these change the behavior.

Why does the query planner choose to ignore the index when the command is parameterised?





--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com


This e-mail together with any attachments (the "Message") is confidential and may contain privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this Message from your system.  Do not copy, disclose or distribute the information contained in this Message.

Maven Investment Partners Ltd (No. 07511928), Maven Derivatives Ltd (No. 07511840) , MVN Asset Management Limited (No. 09659116), Maven Europe Ltd (No. 08966593), Maven Derivatives Asia Limited (No.10361312) & Maven Securities Holding Ltd (No. 07505438) are registered as companies in England and Wales and their registered address is Level 3, 6 Bevis Marks, London EC3A 7BA, United Kingdom. The companies’ VAT No. is 135539016. Maven Asia (Hong Kong) Ltd (No. 2444041) is registered in Hong Kong and its registered address is 20/F, 198 Wellington St, Hong Kong.  Only Maven Derivatives Ltd and MVN Asset Management Limited are authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (Maven Derivatives Ltd FRN: 607267, MVN Asset Management Limited FRN: 714429)

В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Melvin Davidson
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [GENERAL] database is not accepting commands
Следующее
От: Martin Goodson
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [GENERAL] EnterpriseDB installed PostgreSQL 9.6 vs. REPMGR. Round4 - compilation issues on RHEL 7.2