Re: BUG #16869: GROUP BY on primary key unnecessarily triggers a full table scan - Mailing list pgsql-bugs
From | Richard Guo |
---|---|
Subject | Re: BUG #16869: GROUP BY on primary key unnecessarily triggers a full table scan |
Date | |
Msg-id | CAMbWs49X=vuexTVEoGVqtcuVETzVbzPkqRF32ca6LWB25XU73Q@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | BUG #16869: GROUP BY on primary key unnecessarily triggers a full table scan (PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>) |
List | pgsql-bugs |
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 5:55 PM PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> wrote:
Then the following query causes a full table scan (about 100ms on my
computer):
```
SELECT id, name, data FROM foo GROUP BY id ORDER BY data LIMIT 10;
```
The EXPLAIN ANALYZE output is:
```
Limit (cost=8755.26..8755.28 rows=10 width=226) (actual
time=103.486..103.495 rows=10 loops=1)
-> Sort (cost=8755.26..9005.26 rows=100000 width=226) (actual
time=103.484..103.489 rows=10 loops=1)
Sort Key: data
Sort Method: top-N heapsort Memory: 26kB
-> Group (cost=0.29..6594.29 rows=100000 width=226) (actual
time=0.037..66.625 rows=100000 loops=1)
Group Key: id
-> Index Scan using foo_pkey on foo (cost=0.29..6344.29
rows=100000 width=226) (actual time=0.033..31.239 rows=100000 loops=1)
Planning Time: 0.158 ms
Execution Time: 103.589 ms
```
For this query, when building scan paths for 'foo', the index scan path
based on 'foo_idx' is not generated from the beginning, because its
pathkey (sorted by 'data') is considered not usefull regarding
query_pathkeys (which represents the sort order on 'id' here).
However, even if we have the index scan path on 'foo_idx', we are still
unable to have incremental sort based on it, because it does not have
any presorted keys compared to group_pathkeys.
based on 'foo_idx' is not generated from the beginning, because its
pathkey (sorted by 'data') is considered not usefull regarding
query_pathkeys (which represents the sort order on 'id' here).
However, even if we have the index scan path on 'foo_idx', we are still
unable to have incremental sort based on it, because it does not have
any presorted keys compared to group_pathkeys.
Note the index scan on "foo_pkey", which should not be necessary. Obviously,
the grouping doesn't do anything here, but it would if I had joined with
some secondary table on which I wanted to aggregate (which is how I found
this bug in the first place). If I drop the GROUP BY the query executes very
quickly (< 1ms). Interestingly, the following queries *also* execute very
quickly using the index:
```
SELECT name, data FROM foo GROUP BY name, data ORDER BY data LIMIT 10;
SELECT COALESCE(id) as foo_id, name, data FROM foo GROUP BY foo_id, name,
data ORDER BY data LIMIT 10;
```
This last query, which ought to be functionally equivalent to `GROUP BY id`
yields the following execution plan:
```
Limit (cost=67.83..69.38 rows=10 width=226) (actual time=0.139..0.158
rows=10 loops=1)
-> Group (cost=67.83..15636.35 rows=100000 width=226) (actual
time=0.137..0.152 rows=10 loops=1)
Group Key: data, (COALESCE(id)), name
-> Incremental Sort (cost=67.83..14886.35 rows=100000 width=226)
(actual time=0.134..0.137 rows=10 loops=1)
Sort Key: data, (COALESCE(id)), name
Presorted Key: data
Full-sort Groups: 1 Sort Method: quicksort Average Memory:
27kB Peak Memory: 27kB
-> Index Scan using foo_idx on foo (cost=0.29..6344.29
rows=100000 width=226) (actual time=0.028..0.093 rows=33 loops=1)
Planning Time: 0.212 ms
Execution Time: 0.205 ms
```
Note that it's properly using the "foo_idx" index here, and executes very
fast.
Yes, this time the group_pathkeys (as well as query_pathkeys) are the
sort order on 'data, foo_id, name'. As a result we can leverage
'foo_idx' and incremental sort to avoid the full table scan, since there
is LIMIT clause here.
sort order on 'data, foo_id, name'. As a result we can leverage
'foo_idx' and incremental sort to avoid the full table scan, since there
is LIMIT clause here.
So something is going on when grouping by the primary key. This seems like a
bug, or, at the very least, very unintuitive behavior.
Agree.
Thanks
Richard
pgsql-bugs by date: