Re: slow query - only uses indices - Mailing list pgsql-sql
From | imad |
---|---|
Subject | Re: slow query - only uses indices |
Date | |
Msg-id | 1f30b80c0712240834y3a333129q419969d41c2dd4a6@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | slow query - only uses indices (Marc <pgsql-general@mbreslow.net>) |
Responses |
Re: slow query - only uses indices
|
List | pgsql-sql |
On Dec 24, 2007 7:46 PM, Marc <pgsql-general@mbreslow.net> wrote: > Hey Folks, > > This query is running really slowly. Sometimes much slower then others. I > have a feeling that there may be contention on one of the indices it is > using. In the explain plan, it looks like it estimates 2 rows but actually > finds 228 rows? Is that really bad? > You should do an ANALYZE if actual rows are significantly different. And they are. > > > Query and explain plan are below. Seems like it spend the most time doing > Index Scan using i_tablea_atextfield on tablea ru (cost=0.00..2265.28 > rows=2 width=12) (actual time=0.624..881.313 rows=228 loops=1) > > Any suggestions? > > SELECT z.atextfield, > z.btextfield, > z.abigintfield, > p.achar255field, p.ptextfield, > z.achar1field, u.aboolfield, > z.textfield1, > z.achar8field, > z.achar16field > FROM tablea ru > INNER JOIN tableb u ON ( u.atextfield = ru.anothertextfield ) > INNER JOIN tablec z ON u.atextfield = z.atextfield > INNER JOIN tabled p ON p.id = z.pid > LEFT JOIN tablee m ON u.atextfield = m.atextfield AND m.boolcol5 > WHERE ru.atextfield = 'thelookupval' > AND u.boolcol1 IS TRUE > AND u.boolcol2 IS FALSE > AND ru.achar1field <> 'N' > AND ru.boolcol3 IS FALSE > AND NOT EXISTS ( SELECT 'x' FROM tablea fru WHERE fru.atextfield = > ru.anothertextfield AND fru.boolcol3 IS TRUE ) > AND EXISTS ( SELECT 'x' FROM tablef s WHERE s.atextfield = ru.atextfield > AND s.boolcol4 IS TRUE ) > ORDER by ru.anothertextfield asc > > > > Sort (cost=2341.96..2341.97 rows=2 width=146) (actual > time=1118.810..1119.098 rows=228 loops=1) > Sort Key: ru.anothertextfield > -> Nested Loop Left Join (cost=0.00..2341.95 rows=2 width=146) (actual > time= 0.930..1117.258 rows=228 loops=1) > -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..2313.36 rows=2 width=131) (actual > time=0.842..914.554 rows=228 loops=1) > -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..2296.65 rows=2 width=93) (actual > time= 0.765..901.916 rows=228 loops=1) > -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..2281.98 rows=2 width=72) > (actual time=0.690..893.648 rows=228 loops=1) > -> Index Scan using i_tablea_atextfield on tablea > ru (cost= 0.00..2265.28 rows=2 width=12) (actual time=0.624..881.313 > rows=228 loops=1) > Index Cond: (atextfield = > 'thelookupval'::text) > Filter: ((achar1field <> 'N'::bpchar) AND > (boolcol3 IS FALSE) AND (NOT (subplan)) AND (subplan)) > SubPlan > -> Index Scan using tablef_pkey on tablef > s (cost=0.00..8.34 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.016..0.016 rows=1 > loops=228) > Index Cond: (atextfield = $1) > Filter: (boolcol4 IS TRUE) > -> Bitmap Heap Scan on tablea fru > (cost=4.61..90.41 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=3.590..3.590 rows=0 > loops=243) > Recheck Cond: (atextfield = $0) > Filter: (boolcol3 IS TRUE) > -> Bitmap Index Scan on > i_tablea_atextfield (cost= 0.00..4.61 rows=22 width=0) (actual > time=0.044..0.044 rows=17 loops=243) > Index Cond: (atextfield = $0) > -> Index Scan using tablec_pkey on tablec z > (cost= 0.00..8.34 rows=1 width=60) (actual time=0.047..0.049 rows=1 > loops=228) > Index Cond: (z.atextfield = > ru.anothertextfield) > -> Index Scan using tabled_pkey on tabled p (cost= > 0.00..7.32 rows=1 width=29) (actual time=0.030..0.031 rows=1 loops=228) > Index Cond: (p.id = z.pid) > -> Index Scan using tableb_pkey on tableb u (cost= > 0.00..8.34 rows=1 width=38) (actual time=0.049..0.051 rows=1 loops=228) > Index Cond: (u.atextfield = ru.anothertextfield) > Filter: ((boolcol1 IS TRUE) AND (boolcol2" IS FALSE))" > -> Index Scan using tablee_atextfield_idx on tablee m > (cost=0.00..14.28 rows=1 width=39) (actual time=0.883..0.883 rows=0 > loops=228) > Index Cond: (u.atextfield = m.atextfield) > > > > I see a lot of Nested Nested Nested Loops on text fields which means a lot of string comparisons. Try using HashJoin here. ANALYZE your database and explain again. Or try forcing a hashjoin if you still dont see a difference. --Imad