Re: how to improve perf of 131MM row table? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From AJ Weber
Subject Re: how to improve perf of 131MM row table?
Date
Msg-id 53AC1F6E.4000700@comcast.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: how to improve perf of 131MM row table?  (Shaun Thomas <sthomas@optionshouse.com>)
Responses Re: how to improve perf of 131MM row table?  (Matheus de Oliveira <matioli.matheus@gmail.com>)
Re: how to improve perf of 131MM row table?  (Shaun Thomas <sthomas@optionshouse.com>)
Re: how to improve perf of 131MM row table?  (Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
OK, the sample query is attached (hopefully attachments are allowed) as
"query.sql".
The "master table" definition is attached as "table1.sql".
The "detail table" definition is attached as "table2.sql".
The EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) output is here:
http://explain.depesz.com/s/vd5

Let me know if I can provide anything else, and thank you again.

-AJ


On 6/25/2014 5:55 PM, Shaun Thomas wrote:
> On 06/25/2014 04:40 PM, Aaron Weber wrote:
>
>> In the meantime, I guess I wasn't clear about some other particulars
>> The query's where clause is only an "IN", with a list of id's (those
>> I mentioned are the PK), and the join is explicitly on the PK (so,
>> indexed).
>
> Indexed doesn't mean indexed if the wrong datatypes are used. We need
> to see the table and index definitions, and a sample query with
> EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
>
>> An IN with 50 int values took 23sec to return (by way of example).
>
> To me, this sounds like a sequence scan, or one of your key matches so
> many rows, the random seeks are throwing off your performance. Of
> course, I can't confirm that without EXPLAIN output.
>


Attachment

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Aaron Weber
Date:
Subject: Re: how to improve perf of 131MM row table?
Next
From: Matheus de Oliveira
Date:
Subject: Re: how to improve perf of 131MM row table?