Re: postgres performance - Mailing list pgsql-performance
2013/12/7 chidamparam muthusamy <mchidamparam@gmail.com>
Moreover it will be interesting to know what type of storage and filesystem you are using, are you monitoring the latency of your storage ?
Byehi,thank you so much for the input.Can you please clarify the following points:1. Output of BitmapAnd = 303660 rows-> BitmapAnd (cost=539314.51..539314.51 rows=303660 width=0) (actual time=9083.085..9083.085 rows=0 loops=1)-> Bitmap Index Scan on groupid_index (cost=0.00..164070.62 rows=7998674 width=0) (actual time=2303.788..2303.788 rows=7840766 loops=1)Index Cond: ((detailed_report.group_id)::text = 'CHOICE'::text)-> Bitmap Index Scan on client_index (cost=0.00..175870.62 rows=7998674 width=0) (actual time=2879.691..2879.691 rows=7840113 loops=1)Index Cond: ((detailed_report.client)::text = 'ChoiceFone'::text)-> Bitmap Index Scan on partial_endtime_index (cost=0.00..199145.02 rows=9573259 width=0) (actual time=1754.044..1754.044 rows=9476589 loops=1)Index Cond: ((detailed_report.end_time >= '2013-05-01 00:00:00+00'::timestamp with time zone) AND (detailed_report.end_time < '2013-06-01 00:00:00+00'::timestamp with time zone))2. In the Next outer node Bitmap Heap Scan, estimated rows = 303660 and actual rows = 2958392, why huge difference ? How to bring it down.Bitmap Heap Scan on public.detailed_report (cost=539314.51..1544589.52 rows=303660 width=44) (actual time=9619.913..51757.911 rows=2958392 loops=1)3. what is the cause for Recheck, is it possible to reduce the time taken for Recheck ?Recheck Cond: (((detailed_report.group_id)::text = 'CHOICE'::text) AND ((detailed_report.client)::text = 'ChoiceFone'::text) AND (detailed_report.end_time >= '2013-05-01 00:00:00+00'::timestamp with time zone) AND (detailed_report.end_time < '2013-06-01 00:00:00+00'::timestamp with time zone))thanksOn Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com> wrote:On 06/12/13 17:36, chidamparam muthusamy wrote:
I rather think Alan is right - you either want a lot more RAM or faster disks. Have a look at your first query...Query:
EXPLAIN (analyze, buffers) SELECT text(client) as client, text(gateway)
as gateway,count(*)::bigint as total_calls, (avg(duration)/1000.0)
::numeric(10,2) as acd, (avg(pdd)) ::numeric(10,2) as pdd,
sum(call_duration_recv)/1000.0 as duration_recv,
sum(call_duration_pay)/1000.0 as duration_pay, sum(call_amount_recv) as
call_amount_recv, sum(call_amount_pay) as call_amount_
pay FROM detailed_report WHERE end_time>='2013-05-01 00:00' and
end_time<'2013-07-01 00:00' and group_id='admin' and client ='CHOICE'
GROUP by client, gateway ORDER BY call_amount_recv DESC;QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------
Sort (cost=3422863.06..3422868.69 rows=2254 width=44) (actual
time=137852.474..137852.474 rows=5 loops=1)
Sort Key: (sum(call_amount_recv))
Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 25kB
Buffers: shared read=2491664-> HashAggregate (cost=3422664.28..3422737.53 rows=2254 width=44)
(actual time=137852.402..137852.454 rows=5 loops=1)
Buffers: shared read=2491664-> Bitmap Heap Scan on detailed_report (cost=644828.11..3399506.87
rows=1029218 width=44) (actual time=4499.558..125443.122 rows=5248227
loops=1)
Recheck Cond: ((end_time >= '2013-05-01 00:00:00+00'::timestamp with
time zone) AND (end_time < '2013-07-01 00:00:00+00'::timestamp with time
zone) AND ((group_id)::text = 'adm
in'::text) AND ((client)::text = 'CHOICE'::text))
Buffers: shared read=2491664-> Bitmap Index Scan on endtime_groupid_client_tsidx_detail_report
(cost=0.00..644570.81 rows=1029218 width=0) (actual
time=3418.754..3418.754 rows=5248227 loops=1)
Index Cond: ((end_time >= '2013-05-01 00:00:00+00'::timestamp with time
zone) AND (end_time < '2013-07-01 00:00:00+00'::timestamp with time
zone) AND ((group_id)::text =
'admin'::text) AND ((client)::text = 'CHOICE'::text))
Buffers: shared read=95055Total runtime: *137868.946 ms*
(13 rows)
The index is being used, but most of your time is going on the "Bitmap Heap Scan". You're processing 5.2 million rows in about 120 seconds - that's about 43 rows per millisecond - not too bad. It's not getting any cache hits though, it's having to read all the blocks. Looking at the number of blocks, that's ~2.5 million at 8KB each or about 20GB. You just don't have the RAM to cache that.
If you have lots of similar reporting queries to run, you might get away with dropping the index and letting them run in parallel. Each individual query would be slow but they should be smart enough to share each other's sequential scans - the disks would basically be looping through you data continuously.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
Hi,
about point 3, if I remembr correctly, the problem is that the module that create the bitmap index could choose between not lossy or lossy. The problem is correlated to the max number of tuples inside a block ( 256 for 8kb block) , so if you not have enought work_memory , the module switches to the lossy storage (that use only 1 bit for a disk page) and so your backend process have to do the recheck condition on the tuples read from table.You could try to increase work_mem (better) to avoid the module switches from not lossy bitmap to lossy bitmap, or try to disable the enable_bitmapscan (set enable_bitmapscan=off) to see if you could gain something.
Abount point 1 , it's doing a bitwise and operation between the bitmap indexes so it use both 3 bitmap indexes to apply the predicates of the query.
About point 2 it depends on statistics, it's possible you are not analyzing enough rows of the table, by the way the important thing is that your plans are table and "good".
Moreover it will be interesting to know what type of storage and filesystem you are using, are you monitoring the latency of your storage ?
Did you try the effective_io_concurrency to speed up bitmap heap scan ? see here
Mat
pgsql-performance by date: