Thread: Select on timestamp-day slower than timestamp alone

Select on timestamp-day slower than timestamp alone

From

Reiner Dassing

Date:

06 May 2003, 05:59:56

Hello all!

On PostgreSQL V7.3.2 on TRU64 I recognized the following phenomena
that a SELECT using a difference of a timestamp and an interval
in the WHERE clause does not use the index
but using a timestamp without a difference does use the index.
The semantic of both SELECT's is equal, i.e., the result is equal.

Therefore, the second way is much faster.

Any ideas?


In detail:
  table:

wetter=# \d wetter
               Table "public.wetter"
   Column   |           Type           | Modifiers
-----------+--------------------------+-----------
  sensor_id | integer                  | not null
  epoche    | timestamp with time zone | not null
  wert      | real                     | not null
Indexes: wetter_pkey primary key btree (sensor_id, epoche),
          wetter_epoche_idx btree (epoche),
          wetter_sensor_id_idx btree (sensor_id)
Triggers: RI_ConstraintTrigger_45702811,
           t_ins_wetter_wetterakt



Select not using index:
-----------------------
wetter=# explain select * from wetter where epoche between
'2003-05-06 06:50:54+00'::timestamp-'1 days'::interval
AND '2003-05-06 04:45:36';

          QUERY PLAN


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Seq Scan on wetter  (cost=0.00..768644.57 rows=10253528 width=16)
    Filter: ((epoche >= ('2003-05-05 06:50:54'::timestamp without time
zone)::timestamp with time zone) AND (epoche <= '2003-05-06
04:45:36+00'::timestamp with time zone))
(2 rows)

wetter=#




Select using the index:
-----------------------
explain select * from wetter where epoche between '2003-05-05 06:50:54'
AND '2003-05-06 04:45:36';

QUERY PLAN


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Index Scan using wetter_epoche_idx on wetter  (cost=0.00..5.45 rows=1
width=16)
    Index Cond: ((epoche >= '2003-05-05 06:50:54+00'::timestamp with
time zone) AND (epoche <= '2003-05-06 04:45:36+00'::timestamp with time
zone))
(2 rows)

wetter=#




--

Mit freundlichen Gruessen / With best regards
    Reiner Dassing

Re: Select on timestamp-day slower than timestamp alone

From

Richard Huxton

Date:

06 May 2003, 12:04:33

On Tuesday 06 May 2003 7:59 am, Reiner Dassing wrote:
> Hello all!
>
> On PostgreSQL V7.3.2 on TRU64 I recognized the following phenomena
> that a SELECT using a difference of a timestamp and an interval
> in the WHERE clause does not use the index
> but using a timestamp without a difference does use the index.
> The semantic of both SELECT's is equal, i.e., the result is equal.
>
> Therefore, the second way is much faster.
>
> Any ideas?

> Select not using index:
> -----------------------
> wetter=# explain select * from wetter where epoche between
> '2003-05-06 06:50:54+00'::timestamp-'1 days'::interval
> AND '2003-05-06 04:45:36';
>
>           QUERY PLAN
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-------------------- Seq Scan on wetter  (cost=0.00..768644.57 rows=10253528
> width=16) Filter: ((epoche >= ('2003-05-05 06:50:54'::timestamp without
> time zone)::timestamp with time zone) AND (epoche <= '2003-05-06
> 04:45:36+00'::timestamp with time zone))
> (2 rows)

Well, the "why" is because the number of rows recommended is so big
(rows=10253528) - I'm also puzzled why we get "timestamp without time zone".
Does an explicit cast to "with time zone" help?

--
  Richard Huxton

Re: Select on timestamp-day slower than timestamp alone

From

Tom Lane

Date:

06 May 2003, 12:59:09

Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com> writes:
> Well, the "why" is because the number of rows recommended is so big
> (rows=10253528) - I'm also puzzled why we get "timestamp without time zone".

Because that's what he specified the constant to be.

> Does an explicit cast to "with time zone" help?

Writing the constant as timestamp with time zone would fix it.
Casting after-the-fact would not.

The reason: although both "timestamp minus interval" and "timestamptz
minus interval" are constant-foldable, timestamp-to-timestamptz
conversion is not (because it depends on SET TIMEZONE).  So the
planner has to fall back to a default selectivity estimate.  With real
constants it is able to derive a better estimate.

            regards, tom lane

Re: Select on timestamp-day slower than timestamp alone

From

Reiner Dassing

Date:

06 May 2003, 13:00:47

Hello Richard!


Your proposal to use an explicit cast to "with time zone" helps:

explain
select * from wetter where epoche between
'2003-05-06 06:50:54+00'::timestamp with time zone-'1 days'::interval
AND '2003-05-06 04:45:36';


QUERY PLAN


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Index Scan using wetter_epoche_idx on wetter  (cost=0.00..5.45 rows=1
width=16)
    Index Cond: ((epoche >= '2003-05-05 06:50:54+00'::timestamp with
time zone) AND (epoche <= '2003-05-06 04:45:36+00'::timestamp with time
zone))
(2 rows)

The result now is like expected.

Thanks for the help.
But for your question "why we get "timestamp without time zone"."
I have no answer.

Reiner


>
>>Select not using index:
>>-----------------------
>>wetter=# explain select * from wetter where epoche between
>>'2003-05-06 06:50:54+00'::timestamp-'1 days'::interval
>>AND '2003-05-06 04:45:36';
>>
>>          QUERY PLAN
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>-------------------- Seq Scan on wetter  (cost=0.00..768644.57 rows=10253528
>>width=16) Filter: ((epoche >= ('2003-05-05 06:50:54'::timestamp without
>>time zone)::timestamp with time zone) AND (epoche <= '2003-05-06
>>04:45:36+00'::timestamp with time zone))
>>(2 rows)
>
>
> Well, the "why" is because the number of rows recommended is so big
> (rows=10253528) - I'm also puzzled why we get "timestamp without time zone".
> Does an explicit cast to "with time zone" help?
>