On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 at 06:32, Rondat Flyag <rondatflyag@yandex.ru> wrote:
> I tried VACUUM ANALYZE for three tables, but without success. I also tried to set enable_seqscan=off and the query
tookeven more time. If I set enable_sort=off then the query takes a lot of time and I cancel it.
>
> Please see the attached query plans.
It's a little hard to comment here as I don't see what the plan was
before when you were happy with the performance. I also see the
queries you mentioned in the initial email don't match the plans.
There's no table called "isbns" in the query. I guess this is "asins"?
Likely you could get a faster plan if there was an index on
asins_statistics (asin_id). That would allow a query plan that scans
the isbns_value_key index and performs a parameterised nested loop on
asins_statistics using the asins_statistics (asin_id) index. Looking
at your schema, I don't see that index, so it's pretty hard to guess
why the plan used to be faster. Even if the books/asins merge join
used to take place first, there'd have been no efficient way to join
to the asins_statistics table and preserve the Merge Join's order (I'm
assuming non-parameterized nested loops would be inefficient in this
case). Doing that would have also required the asins_statistics
(asin_id) index. Are you sure that index wasn't dropped?
However, likely it's a waste of time to try to figure out what the
plan used to be. Better to focus on trying to make it faster. I
suggest you create the asins_statistics (asin_id) index. However, I
can't say with any level of confidence that the planner would opt to
use that index if it did exist. Lowering random_page_cost or
increasing effective_cache_size would increase the chances of that.
David
