Planner won't use composite index if there is an order by ????

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Dave Cramer
Тема Planner won't use composite index if there is an order by ????
Дата
Msg-id DECED72A-5784-4D6C-9E27-6316FDE32E64@fastcrypt.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответы Re: Planner won't use composite index if there is an order by ????  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-performance
Any idea why it wouldn't choose the right index ?

This is 8.3

> # \d battles
>                                          Table "public.battles"
>       Column        |            Type             |
> Modifiers
> ---------------------+-----------------------------
> +------------------------------------------------------
> id                  | integer                     | not null default
> nextval('battles_id_seq'::regclass)
> user_id             | integer                     | not null
> contest_id          | integer                     | not null
> entry_1_id          | integer                     | not null
> entry_2_id          | integer                     | not null
> new_entry_1_score   | integer                     |
> new_entry_2_score   | integer                     |
> score               | integer                     |
> scored_at           | timestamp without time zone |
> created_at          | timestamp without time zone | not null
> function_profile_id | integer                     |
> battle_type         | integer                     | default 0
> Indexes:
>    "battles_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (id)
>    "unique_with_type" UNIQUE, btree (user_id, entry_1_id, entry_2_id,
> battle_type)
>    "battles_by_contest_and_type" btree (contest_id, battle_type)
>    "battles_by_time" btree (scored_at)
> Foreign-key constraints:
>    "fk_battles_contests" FOREIGN KEY (contest_id) REFERENCES
> contests(id)
>    "fk_battles_lefty" FOREIGN KEY (entry_1_id) REFERENCES entries(id)
>    "fk_battles_righty" FOREIGN KEY (entry_2_id) REFERENCES entries(id)
>    "fk_battles_users" FOREIGN KEY (user_id) REFERENCES users(id)
>
>
> Here is the analyze of the query we want but it takes forever because
> its using the index for the sort instead of restricting the number of
> battles by user_id:
>
> ourstage_production=# explain analyze SELECT * FROM battles WHERE
> user_id = 196698 and scored_at is not null and score in (-3,3) ORDER
> BY
> id DESC LIMIT 5;
>
> QUERY PLAN
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Limit  (cost=0.00..8381.61 rows=5 width=56) (actual
> time=124421.499..183659.404 rows=2 loops=1)
>   ->  Index Scan Backward using battles_pkey on battles
> (cost=0.00..670528.67 rows=400 width=56) (actual
> time=124421.495..183659.394 rows=2 loops=1)
>         Filter: ((scored_at IS NOT NULL) AND (score = ANY
> ('{-3,3}'::integer[])) AND (user_id = 196698))
> Total runtime: 183659.446 ms
> (4 rows)
>
>
> If you remove the ORDER BY then it runs in 4 ms:
>
> ourstage_production=# explain analyze SELECT * FROM battles WHERE
> user_id = 196698 and scored_at is not null and score in (-3,3) LIMIT
> 5;
>                                                              QUERY
> PLAN
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Limit  (cost=0.00..126.65 rows=5 width=56) (actual time=4.607..4.621
> rows=2 loops=1)
>   ->  Index Scan using unique_with_type on battles
> (cost=0.00..10131.66 rows=400 width=56) (actual time=4.603..4.611
> rows=2 loops=1)
>         Index Cond: (user_id = 196698)
>         Filter: ((scored_at IS NOT NULL) AND (score = ANY
> ('{-3,3}'::integer[])))
> Total runtime: 4.660 ms
> (5 rows)
>
>
> Here we tried to limit the table scan by time so that it would scan
> far
> fewer records.  But what ended up happening is that it flipped it over
> to using the right index.  The one that is based on user_id is much
> preferred:
>
>
> ourstage_production=# explain analyze SELECT * FROM battles WHERE
> user_id = 196698 and scored_at is not null and score in (-3,3) and
> scored_at > now() - INTERVAL '6 month' ORDER BY id DESC LIMIT 5;
>                                                                 QUERY
> PLAN
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Limit  (cost=10158.16..10158.18 rows=5 width=56) (actual
> time=0.097..0.106 rows=2 loops=1)
>   ->  Sort  (cost=10158.16..10158.92 rows=302 width=56) (actual
> time=0.094..0.096 rows=2 loops=1)
>         Sort Key: id
>         Sort Method:  quicksort  Memory: 25kB
>         ->  Index Scan using unique_with_type on battles
> (cost=0.00..10153.15 rows=302 width=56) (actual time=0.069..0.078
> rows=2 loops=1)
>               Index Cond: (user_id = 196698)
>               Filter: ((scored_at IS NOT NULL) AND (score = ANY
> ('{-3,3}'::integer[])) AND (scored_at > (now() - '6 mons'::interval)))
> Total runtime: 0.152 ms
> (8 rows)
>
>
> Notice that we added time restriction and it now chooses to not use
> the
> time index and goes after the index based on user_id.  Why?  We
> don't know.


В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: PFC
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Question about disk IO an index use and seeking advice
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Planner won't use composite index if there is an order by ????