Re: Differents execution times with gin index, prepared statement and literals.
От | Pierrick Chovelon |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Differents execution times with gin index, prepared statement and literals. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | ece8c222-d0d5-4c12-af42-6f5a1b708ab5@dalibo.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Differents execution times with gin index, prepared statement and literals. (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello,
Thanks a lot for your clear answer.
On 16/07/2024 19:54, Tomas Vondra wrote:
I try the following thing :On 7/16/24 17:43, Pierrick Chovelon wrote:... Quite fast as well... Have you got an idea on the initial issue ? Why when using a prepared statement and a gin index the execution time "explode" ? Something to do with the planner ? optimizer ? (We executed the same test with a btree index and execution times are the same in both cases).The reason why the two queries end up with different plans is pretty simple - the condition ends up matching different operators, because of data type difference. In case of the prepared query, the (x <= 950000) matches <=(bigint,bitint) operator, and thus it matches the index. But that happens because the query is prepared with bigint parameter. For the regular query, the 950000 literal gets treated as int, the condition matches to <=(bigint,int) and that does not match the index - hence it's treated as a filter, not an index condition. If you cast the literal to bigint (by doing ::bigint) in the regular query, we end it'll use the same same plan as the prepared query - but that's the slower one, unfortunately :-(
postgres=# prepare stmt(int, text, int) as delete from tmp_tk_test_index where sync_id <= $1 and line_id = $2 and chk_upgrade_index = $3; PREPARE postgres=# begin ; BEGIN postgres=*# explain (analyse) execute stmt(950000, 'the-test-value-fa529a621a15', 0);
QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delete on tmp_tk_test_index (cost=21.36..25.38 rows=0 width=0) (actual time=0.148..0.149 rows=0 loops=1) -> Bitmap Heap Scan on tmp_tk_test_index (cost=21.36..25.38 rows=1 width=6) (actual time=0.146..0.147 rows=0 loops=1) Recheck Cond: ((line_id)::text = 'the-test-value-fa529a621a15'::text) Filter: ((sync_id <= 950000) AND (chk_upgrade_index = 0)) Heap Blocks: exact=1 -> Bitmap Index Scan on idx_tmp_tk_test_index_1 (cost=0.00..21.36 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.099..0.099 rows=1 loops=1) Index Cond: ((line_id)::text = 'the-test-value-fa529a621a15'::text) Planning Time: 9.412 ms Execution Time: 1.570 ms (9 rows) postgres=*# rollback ; ROLLBACK
So preparing a query with a data type different from the column (int (prepared statement) vs bigint (table)) is faster in our case :/
It doesn't sound obvious to me :)
Thanks again for your answer Tomas.
Which gets us to why that plan is slower, compared to the plan using fewer conditions. I think the problem is that <= 950000 matches most of the table, which means the GIN index will have to load and process a pretty long TID list, which is clearly not cheap. I don't think there's much you can do do - we don't consider this when matching conditions to the index, we simply match as many conditions as possible. And the GIN code is not smart enough to make judgements about which columns to process first - it just goes column by column and builds the bitmap, and building a bitmap on 95% of the table is costly. If this is a systemic problem for most/all queries (i.e. it's enough to have a condition on line_id), I believe the +0 trick is a good way to make sure the condition is treated as a filter. regards
-- Pierrick Chovelon Consultant DBA PostgreSQL - Dalibo
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:
Предыдущее
От: Peter SmithДата:
Сообщение: Re: Slow catchup of 2PC (twophase) transactions on replica in LR
Следующее
От: Laurenz AlbeДата:
Сообщение: Re: Restrict EXPLAIN (ANALYZE) for RLS and security_barrier views