Re: How to improve the performance of my SQL query? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From gzh
Subject Re: How to improve the performance of my SQL query?
Date
Msg-id 1937d056.71e9.18973a752d0.Coremail.gzhcoder@126.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: How to improve the performance of my SQL query?  (Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>)
Responses Re: How to improve the performance of my SQL query?
List pgsql-general
Thank you for your reply.
The information I provided is incorrect, please see my previous reply.

>What I cannot see is if the columns are defined as "character" or whether you bind
>the parameters as "character".  Can you show us the table definition of "TBL_SHA"
>and "TBL_INF"?
For information security reasons, I can't provide the table definition, these columns are defined as "character".






At 2023-07-20 19:58:59, "Laurenz Albe" <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> wrote: >On Thu, 2023-07-20 at 15:09 +0800, gzh wrote: >> I'm running into some performance issues with my SQL query. >> The following SQL query is taking a long time to execute. >> >> explain analyze >> select COUNT(ET_CD) >> from TBL_SHA >> WHERE TBL_SHA.MS_CD = '009' >> and TBL_SHA.ETRYS in >>    (select TBL_INF.RY_CD >>     from TBL_INF >>     WHERE TBL_INF.MS_CD = '009' >>    AND TBL_INF.RY_CD = '000001' >>    ) >> ----- Execution Plan ----- >> Limit  (cost=2738709.57..2738709.58 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=124168.769..124168.771 rows=1 loops=1) >>   ->  Aggregate  (cost=2738709.57..2738709.58 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=124168.767..124168.769 rows=1 loops=1) >>         ->  Nested Loop  (cost=0.29..2730702.63 rows=3202774 width=9) (actual time=97264.166..123920.769 rows=3200000 loops=1) >>               ->  Index Only Scan using TBL_INF_pkc on TBL_INF  (cost=0.29..8.31 rows=1 width=9) (actual time=0.025..0.030 rows=1 loops=1) >>                     Index Cond: ((MS_CD = '009'::bpchar) AND (RY_CD = '000001'::bpchar)) >>                     Heap Fetches: 1 >>               ->  Seq Scan on TBL_SHA  (cost=0.00..2698666.58 rows=3202774 width=18) (actual time=97264.138..123554.792 rows=3200000 loops=1) >>                     Filter: ((MS_CD = '009'::bpchar) AND (ETRYS = '000001'::bpchar)) >>                     Rows Removed by Filter: 32000325 >> Planning Time: 0.162 ms >> Execution Time: 124168.838 ms >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> The index is defined as follows. >> >> CREATE INDEX index_search_01 ON mdb.TBL_SHA USING btree (MS_CD, ETRYS); > >Actual rows = 3200000, rows removed by filter is ten times as much. >It should use an index. > >> When I take the following sql statement, the index works fine and the query is fast. >> >> select COUNT(ET_CD) >> from TBL_SHA >> WHERE MS_CD = '009' >> AND ETRYS = '000001' >> >> The amount of data in the table is as follows. >> TBL_SHA    38700325 >> TBL_INF    35546 > >This looks very much like it is a problem with the data types. >I see that you are using "character", which you shouldn't do. > >What I cannot see is if the columns are defined as "character" or whether you bind >the parameters as "character". Can you show us the table definition of "TBL_SHA" >and "TBL_INF"? > >Yours, >Laurenz Albe

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Geoff Winkless
Date:
Subject: Re: TSQL To Postgres - Unpivot/Union All
Next
From: Anthony Apollis
Date:
Subject: Fwd: TSQL To Postgres - Unpivot/Union All