Re: Why so slow? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Alessandro Gagliardi
Subject Re: Why so slow?
Date
Msg-id CAAB3BBKpF8AsDG7D5wdWz7eqK6YwYurMQ2ymjSToXsojXiv2wA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why so slow?  (Ants Aasma <ants.aasma@eesti.ee>)
List pgsql-performance
Ah, that did make a big difference! It went from taking 10x as long to taking only 1.5x as long (about what I would have expected, if not better.) Thank you!

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Ants Aasma <ants.aasma@eesti.ee> wrote:

On Feb 17, 2012 8:35 PM, "Alessandro Gagliardi" <alessandro@path.com> wrote:
> Here is the EXPLAIN: http://explain.depesz.com/s/ley
>
> I'm using PostgreSQL 9.0.6 on i486-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc-4.4.real (Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5) 4.4.3, 32-bit
>
> My random_page_cost is 2 and yet it still insists on using Seq Scan on blocks.

As could be inferred from the row counts, it's slow because its joining and then aggregating a quarter of the blocks table. The hash join with its sequential scan is probably the correct choice for that type of join, it's the join itself that should be optimized out. The optimizer doesn't figure out that the join can be turned into a semi join if the output is aggregated with distinct and is from only one of the tables (in this case, because the output is the join key, it can be from either table).

To make the optimizers job easier you can rewrite it as a semi-join explicitly:
SELECT DISTINCT(user_id) FROM seen_its WHERE EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM blocks WHERE blocks.user_id = seen_its.user_id) AND seen_its.created BETWEEN (now()::date - interval '8 days')::timestamp AND now()::date::timestamp

--
Ants Aasma


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Ofer Israeli
Date:
Subject: Re: Insertions slower than Updates?
Next
From: Alessandro Gagliardi
Date:
Subject: Indexes and Primary Keys on Rapidly Growing Tables