Re: Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp field - Mailing list pgsql-performance
From | Caio Casimiro |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp field |
Date | |
Msg-id | CAK42QYFHcY33U+9xHH1W=bYE4SNzkSa2oVaBkzwdwSPGJ=TXKA@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp field (Igor Neyman <ineyman@perceptron.com>) |
Responses |
Re: Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp field
|
List | pgsql-performance |
These are the parameters I have set in postgresql.conf:
work_mem = 128MB
shared_buffers = 1GB
maintenance_work_mem = 1536MB
fsync = off
synchronous_commit = off
effective_cache_size = 2GB
The hardware is a modest one:
CPU: Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU 230 @ 1.60GHz
RAM: 2GB
HD: 1TV 7200 RPM (WDC WD10EZEX-00RKKA0)
This machine runs a slackware 14.0 dedicated to the Postgresql.
Thank you,
Caio
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Igor Neyman <ineyman@perceptron.com> wrote:
From: Caio Casimiro [mailto:casimiro.listas@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 4:10 PM
To: Igor Neyman
Cc: Jeff Janes; pgsql-performance@postgresql.orgSubject: Re: [PERFORM] Slow index scan on B-Tree index over timestamp fieldHi Neyman, thank you for your answer.
Unfortunately this query runs almost at the same time:
Sort (cost=4877693.98..4877702.60 rows=3449 width=20) (actual time=25820.291..25821.845 rows=1640 loops=1)
Sort Key: tt.tweet_id
Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 97kB
Buffers: shared hit=1849 read=32788
-> Nested Loop (cost=247.58..4877491.32 rows=3449 width=20) (actual time=486.839..25814.120 rows=1640 loops=1)
Buffers: shared hit=1849 read=32788
-> Hash Semi Join (cost=229.62..88553.23 rows=1681 width=8) (actual time=431.654..13209.159 rows=597 loops=1)
Hash Cond: (t.user_id = relationship.followed_id)
Buffers: shared hit=3 read=31870
-> Index Scan using tweet_creation_time_index on tweet t (cost=0.57..83308.25 rows=1781234 width=16) (actual time=130.144..10037.764 rows=1759645 loops=1)
Index Cond: ((creation_time >= '2013-05-05 00:00:00-03'::timestamp with time zone) AND (creation_time <= '2013-05-06 00:00:00-03'::timestamp with time zone))
Buffers: shared hit=1 read=31867
-> Hash (cost=227.12..227.12 rows=154 width=8) (actual time=94.365..94.365 rows=106 loops=1)
Buckets: 1024 Batches: 1 Memory Usage: 3kB
Buffers: shared hit=2 read=3
-> Index Only Scan using relationship_id on relationship (cost=0.42..227.12 rows=154 width=8) (actual time=74.540..94.101 rows=106 loops=1)
Index Cond: (follower_id = 335093362)
Heap Fetches: 0
Buffers: shared hit=2 read=3
-> Bitmap Heap Scan on tweet_topic tt (cost=17.96..2841.63 rows=723 width=20) (actual time=21.014..21.085 rows=3 loops=597)
Recheck Cond: (tweet_id = t.id)
Buffers: shared hit=1846 read=918
-> Bitmap Index Scan on tweet_topic_pk (cost=0.00..17.78 rows=723 width=0) (actual time=15.012..15.012 rows=3 loops=597)
Index Cond: (tweet_id = t.id)
Buffers: shared hit=1763 read=632
Total runtime: 25823.386 ms
I have noticed that in both queries the index scan on tweet_creation_time_index is very expensive. Is there anything I can do to make the planner choose a index only scan?
Thank you,
CaioJust try the following:What is your hardware configuration, and Postgres config parameters modified from default values?
SELECT tt.tweet_id, tt.topic, tt.topic_value
FROM tweet_topic AS tt JOIN tweet AS t ON (tt.tweet_id = t.id
AND t.creation_time BETWEEN 'D1' AND 'D2' AND t.user_id in
(SELECT followed_id FROM relationship WHERE follower_id = N))
ORDER BY tt.tweet_id;
And see if it helps with performance.
Regards,
Igor Neyman
Regards,
Igor Neyman
pgsql-performance by date: