Re: Scrub one large table against another - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Jim C. Nasby
Subject Re: Scrub one large table against another
Date
Msg-id 20061011010301.GV72517@nasby.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Scrub one large table against another  (Brendan Curran <brendan.curran@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 05:46:18PM -0600, Brendan Curran wrote:
>
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >Brendan Curran <brendan.curran@gmail.com> writes:
> >>Tom Lane wrote:
> >>>Have you tried doing EXPLAIN ANALYZE of each of the INSERT/DELETE steps?
> >
> >>FIRST INSERT (Just the select is explained):
> >
> >EXPLAIN ANALYZE, please, not just EXPLAIN.
> >
> >            regards, tom lane
> >
>
> Sorry, here is the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output of that first SELECT
>
> EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT email_record_id from ONLY email_record er
>     WHERE email_list_id = 13 AND email IN
>     (select email from suppress);
>
> Hash Join  (cost=8359220.68..9129843.00 rows=800912 width=8) (actual
> time=2121601.603..2121601.603 rows=0 loops=1)
>   Hash Cond: (("outer".email)::text = ("inner".email)::text)
>   ->  Unique  (cost=4414093.19..4522324.49 rows=21646260 width=25)
> (actual time=1165955.907..1434439.731 rows=21646261 loops=1)
>         ->  Sort  (cost=4414093.19..4468208.84 rows=21646260 width=25)
> (actual time=1165955.903..1384667.715 rows=21646261 loops=1)
>               Sort Key: suppress.email
>               ->  Seq Scan on suppress  (cost=0.00..393024.60
> rows=21646260 width=25) (actual time=37.784..609848.551 rows=21646261
> loops=1)
>   ->  Hash  (cost=3899868.47..3899868.47 rows=4606808 width=32) (actual
> time=554522.983..554522.983 rows=3245336 loops=1)
>         ->  Bitmap Heap Scan on email_record er
> (cost=38464.83..3899868.47 rows=4606808 width=32) (actual
> time=275640.435..541342.727 rows=3245336 loops=1)
>               Recheck Cond: (email_list_id = 13)
>               ->  Bitmap Index Scan on list  (cost=0.00..38464.83
> rows=4606808 width=0) (actual time=275102.037..275102.037 rows=5172979
> loops=1)
>                     Index Cond: (email_list_id = 13)
> Total runtime: 2122693.864 ms
>
>
> So much time is being spent in the Unique and Sort leaves... I would
> think that it wouldn't need to do the unique portion, since there is no
> DISTINCT clause...

I think that's coming about because of the IN. Try a simple join
instead...

SELECT email_record_id FROM ONLY email_record er JOIN suppress s USING
(email) WHERE er.email_list_id = 13;
--
Jim Nasby                                            jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Mark Kirkwood
Date:
Subject: Re: Simple join optimized badly?
Next
From: Brian Herlihy
Date:
Subject: Re: Simple join optimized badly?