Обсуждение: Index Selection: ORDER BY vs. PRIMARY KEY
I have a query that looks roughly like this (I've removed irrelevant
SELECT clause material and obfuscated names, trying to keep them
consistent where altered in EXPLAIN output):
SELECT u.emma_member_id, h.action_ts
FROM user as u, history as h
WHERE u.user_id = h.user_id
AND h.action_id = '$constant_data'
ORDER BY h.action_ts DESC LIMIT 100 OFFSET 0
The user table has ~25,000 rows. The history table has ~750,000 rows.
Currently, there is an index on history.action_ts and a separate one
on history.action_id. There's also a PRIMARY KEY on user.user_id. If
I run the query as such, I get a plan like this:
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
Limit (cost=0.00..2196.30 rows=100 width=925) (actual
time=947.208..3178.775 rows=3 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..83898.65 rows=3820 width=925)
(actual time=947.201..3178.759 rows=3 loops=1)
-> Index Scan Backward using h_action_ts_idx on history h
(cost=0.00..60823.53 rows=3820 width=480) (actual
time=946.730..3177.953 rows=3 loops=1)
Filter: (action_id = $constant_data::bigint)
-> Index Scan using user_pkey on user u (cost=0.00..6.01
rows=1 width=445) (actual time=0.156..0.161 rows=1 loops=3)
Index Cond: (u.user_id = "outer".user_id)
Total runtime: 3179.143 ms
(7 rows)
If I drop the index on the timestamp field, I get a plan like this:
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Limit (cost=17041.41..17041.66 rows=100 width=925) (actual
time=201.725..201.735 rows=3 loops=1)
-> Sort (cost=17041.41..17050.96 rows=3820 width=925) (actual
time=201.719..201.722 rows=3 loops=1)
Sort Key: h.action_ts
-> Merge Join (cost=13488.15..16814.13 rows=3820
width=925) (actual time=7.306..201.666 rows=3 loops=1)
Merge Cond: ("outer".user_id = "inner".user_id)
-> Index Scan using user_pkey on user u
(cost=0.00..3134.82 rows=26802 width=445) (actual time=0.204..151.351
rows=24220 loops=1)
-> Sort (cost=13488.15..13497.70 rows=3820
width=480) (actual time=0.226..0.234 rows=3 loops=1)
Sort Key: h.user_id
-> Index Scan using h_action_id_idx on history
h (cost=0.00..13260.87 rows=3820 width=480) (actual
time=0.184..0.195 rows=3 loops=1)
Index Cond: (action_id =
$constant_data::bigint)
Total runtime: 202.089 ms
(11 rows)
Clearly, if the index on the timestamp field is there, postgres wants
to use it for the ORDER BY, even though the performance is worse. How
is this preference made internally? If both indexes exist, will
postgres always prefer the index on an ordered column? If I need the
index on the timestamp field for other queries, is my best bet just
to increase sort_mem for this query?
Here's my version string:
PostgreSQL 8.0.3 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC 2.95.4
--
Thomas F. O'Connell
Co-Founder, Information Architect
Sitening, LLC
Strategic Open Source: Open Your i™
http://www.sitening.com/
110 30th Avenue North, Suite 6
Nashville, TN 37203-6320
615-469-5150
615-469-5151 (fax)
"Thomas F. O'Connell" <tfo@sitening.com> writes:
> Clearly, if the index on the timestamp field is there, postgres wants
> to use it for the ORDER BY, even though the performance is worse. How
> is this preference made internally? If both indexes exist, will
> postgres always prefer the index on an ordered column? If I need the
> index on the timestamp field for other queries, is my best bet just
> to increase sort_mem for this query?
If you suppose that Postgres has a "preference" for one index over
another, you're already fatally off track. It's all about estimated
costs. In this case, the plan with h_action_ts_idx is preferred because
it has a lower estimated cost (2196.30) than the other plan (17041.66).
The way to think about this is not that Postgres "prefers" one index
over another, but that the estimated costs aren't in line with reality.
It looks from the plans that there are a number of estimation errors
giving you trouble, but the one that seems most easily fixable is
here:
-> Index Scan using h_action_id_idx on history h (cost=0.00..13260.87 rows=3820 width=480) (actual
time=0.184..0.195rows=3 loops=1)
Index Cond: (action_id = $constant_data::bigint)
Estimating 3820 rows matching $constant_data when there are really only
3 is a pretty serious estimation error :-( ... certainly more than
enough to explain a factor-of-100 error in the total estimated costs.
How recently did you last ANALYZE the history file? If the ANALYZE
stats are up-to-date and it's still blowing the rowcount estimate by
a factor of 1000, maybe you need to increase the statistics target for
this column.
regards, tom lane
On Sep 19, 2005, at 10:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > "Thomas F. O'Connell" <tfo@sitening.com> writes: > >> Clearly, if the index on the timestamp field is there, postgres wants >> to use it for the ORDER BY, even though the performance is worse. How >> is this preference made internally? If both indexes exist, will >> postgres always prefer the index on an ordered column? If I need the >> index on the timestamp field for other queries, is my best bet just >> to increase sort_mem for this query? > > If you suppose that Postgres has a "preference" for one index over > another, you're already fatally off track. It's all about estimated > costs. In this case, the plan with h_action_ts_idx is preferred > because > it has a lower estimated cost (2196.30) than the other plan > (17041.66). > The way to think about this is not that Postgres "prefers" one index > over another, but that the estimated costs aren't in line with > reality. > > It looks from the plans that there are a number of estimation errors > giving you trouble, but the one that seems most easily fixable is > here: > > -> Index Scan using h_action_id_idx on history h > (cost=0.00..13260.87 rows=3820 width=480) (actual time=0.184..0.195 > rows=3 loops=1) > Index Cond: (action_id = $constant_data::bigint) > > Estimating 3820 rows matching $constant_data when there are really > only > 3 is a pretty serious estimation error :-( ... certainly more than > enough to explain a factor-of-100 error in the total estimated costs. > > How recently did you last ANALYZE the history file? If the ANALYZE > stats are up-to-date and it's still blowing the rowcount estimate by > a factor of 1000, maybe you need to increase the statistics target for > this column. > > regards, tom lane Thanks for the guidance, Tom. I don't know why I was "fatally off track" on this one. It was indeed statistics related. pg_autovacuum hadn't visited this table for a long enough window to have an impact on the estimates. A sad case of the should've-known-betters... -- Thomas F. O'Connell Co-Founder, Information Architect Sitening, LLC Strategic Open Source: Open Your i™ http://www.sitening.com/ 110 30th Avenue North, Suite 6 Nashville, TN 37203-6320 615-469-5150 615-469-5151 (fax)