Re: Index no longer being used, destroying and recreating it restores use. - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Koen De Groote
Subject Re: Index no longer being used, destroying and recreating it restores use.
Date
Msg-id CAGbX52GzwrgBZNhpSGEYwob5NiVjz=_6_OB14oXTjdFu-9mO4A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Index no longer being used, destroying and recreating it restores use.  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Index no longer being used, destroying and recreating it restoresuse.  (Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>)
List pgsql-general
I've collected all relevant info(I think so at least) and put it here:

The table in question is used to keep filepath data, of files on a harddrive.
The query in question is used to retrieve items which should be backed up, but have not yet been.

The relevant columns of the table:

                                                    Table "public.item"
               Column               |            Type             | Collation | Nullable |                   Default                    
------------------------------------+-----------------------------+-----------+----------+----------------------------------------------
 id                                 | bigint                      |           | not null | nextval('item_id_seq'::regclass)
 shouldbebackedup                   | boolean                     |           | not null | true
 backupperformed                    | boolean                     |           | not null | false
 itemCreated                        | timestamp without time zone |           |          | now()
 filepath                           | text                        |           |          |


The existing index, which no longer gets used:
"index_in_question" btree (shouldbebackedup, backupperformed, itemCreated, filepath) WHERE shouldbebackedup = true AND backupperformed = false

The new index, made out of the exact same columns and conditions, get used immediately after creation:
CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY index_test ON item USING btree (shouldbebackedup, backupperformed, itemCreated, filepath) WHERE shouldbebackedup = true AND backupperformed = false;


The query in question will look something like this:
select * from item where shouldbebackedup=true and itemCreated<='2020-06-05 00:00:00.000' and backupperformed=false order by filepath asc, id asc limit 100 offset 10400;

Having done a count, there are around 13000 items here, without the offset and limit.
That being said, the amount is entirely dependant on what was added on a previous day.


I tried creating an extended statistic, like this, but it had no effect:
CREATE STATISTICS s1 (dependencies) ON shouldbebackedup, backupperformed FROM item;

Settings from the conf file I think are related:

shared_buffers = 1024MB
effective_cache_size = 2048MB
random_page_cost = 1.1
effective_io_concurrency = 200
work_mem = 32MB

Finally, I state again that this database gets a nightly "vacuum analyze".

My thanks for looking at this and any suggestions one might have.

Regards,
Koen

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 7:08 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> writes:
> On 6/4/20 9:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's possible that the index had bloated to the point where the planner
>> thought it was cheaper to use a seqscan.  Did you make a note of the
>> cost estimates for the different plans?

> I missed the part where the OP pointed to a SO question. In that
> question where links to explain.depesz.com output.

Ah, I didn't bother to chase that link either.

So the cost estimates are only a fraction of a percent apart, making
it unsurprising for not-so-large changes in the index size to cause
a flip in the apparently-cheapest plan.  The real question then is
why the cost estimates aren't actually modeling the real execution
times very well; and I'd venture that that question boils down to
why is this rowcount estimate so far off:

>                ->  Parallel Seq Scan on oscar mike_three
> (cost=0.000..1934568.500 rows=2385585 width=3141) (actual
> time=159.800..158018.961 rows=23586 loops=3)
>                        Filter: (four AND (NOT bravo) AND (zulu <=
> 'echo'::timestamp without time zone))
>                        Rows Removed by Filter: 8610174

We're not going to be able to answer that if the OP doesn't wish
to decloak his data a bit more ... but a reasonable guess is that
those filter conditions are correlated.  With late-model Postgres
you might be able to improve matters by creating extended statistics
for this table.

                        regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: Re: When to use PARTITION BY HASH?
Next
From: Adrian Klaver
Date:
Subject: Re: Index no longer being used, destroying and recreating it restoresuse.