Re: query on parent partition table has bad performance - Mailing list pgsql-performance

"Huang, Suya" <Suya.Huang@au.experian.com> writes:
> I have a question about partition table query performance in postgresql, it's an old version 8.3.21, I know it's
alreadyout of support. so any words about the reason for the behavior would be very much appreciated. 

> I have a partition table which name is test_rank_2014_monthly and it has 7 partitions inherited from the parent
table,each month with one partition.  The weird thing is query out of the parent partition is as slow as query from a
non-partitionedtable, however, query from child table directly is really fast. 

> hitwise_uk=# explain analyze select * from test_rank_2014_07 r WHERE r.date = 201407 ;
>                                                             QUERY PLAN
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Seq Scan on test_rank_2014_07 r  (cost=0.00..169797.75 rows=7444220 width=54) (actual time=0.007..1284.622
rows=7444220loops=1) 
>    Filter: (date = 201407)
>  Total runtime: 1831.379 ms
> (3 rows)

> -- query on parent table
> hitwise_uk=# explain analyze select * from test_rank_2014_monthly r WHERE r.date = 201407 ;
>                                                                   QUERY PLAN
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Result  (cost=0.00..169819.88 rows=7444225 width=54) (actual time=0.009..4484.552 rows=7444220 loops=1)
>    ->  Append  (cost=0.00..169819.88 rows=7444225 width=54) (actual time=0.008..2495.457 rows=7444220 loops=1)
>          ->  Seq Scan on test_rank_2014_monthly r  (cost=0.00..22.12 rows=5 width=54) (actual time=0.000..0.000
rows=0loops=1) 
>                Filter: (date = 201407)
>          ->  Seq Scan on test_rank_2014_07 r  (cost=0.00..169797.75 rows=7444220 width=54) (actual
time=0.007..1406.600rows=7444220 loops=1) 
>                Filter: (date = 201407)
>  Total runtime: 5036.092 ms
> (7 rows)

The actual SeqScans are not very different in speed according to this.
Most of the extra time seems to be going into the Append and Result nodes.
Since those aren't actually doing anything except to return the input
tuple up to their caller, I suspect what we're looking at here is mostly
EXPLAIN ANALYZE's measurement overhead.  How much speed difference is
there if you just do the query, rather than EXPLAIN ANALYZE'ing it?


> --query on non-partitioned table
> hitwise_uk=# explain analyze select * from rank_2014_monthly r WHERE r.date = 201407 ;
>                                                               QUERY PLAN
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Seq Scan on rank_2014_monthly r  (cost=0.00..1042968.85 rows=7424587 width=54) (actual time=3226.983..4537.974
rows=7444220loops=1) 
>    Filter: (date = 201407)
>  Total runtime: 5086.096 ms
> (3 rows)

You don't appear to be comparing apples to apples here.  Note the larger
cost estimate, and the odd delay of more than 3 seconds before the first
row is returned.  Presumably what is happening is that this table contains
gigabytes of dead space before the first live tuple.  You don't say how
you made this comparison table, but I'll bet it involved deleting data
and then loading fresh data without a VACUUM or TRUNCATE first.

            regards, tom lane