Thread: Searching in varchar column having 100M records

Hello

Please recheck with track_io_timing = on in configuration. explain (analyze,buffers) with this option will report how
manytime we spend during i/o
 

>   Buffers: shared hit=2 read=31492

31492 blocks / 65 sec ~ 480 IOPS, not bad if you are using HDD

Your query reads table data from disks (well, or from OS cache). You need more RAM for shared_buffers or disks with
betterperformance.
 

regards, Sergei

On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 02:53:20PM +0300, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
>Hello
>
>Please recheck with track_io_timing = on in configuration. explain
>(analyze,buffers) with this option will report how many time we spend
>during i/o
>
>>   Buffers: shared hit=2 read=31492
>
>31492 blocks / 65 sec ~ 480 IOPS, not bad if you are using HDD
>
>Your query reads table data from disks (well, or from OS cache). You need
>more RAM for shared_buffers or disks with better performance.
>

Either that, or try creating a covering index, so that the query can do an
index-only scan. That might reduce the amount of IO against the table, and
in the index the data should be located close to each other (same page or
pages close to each other).

So try something like

    CREATE INDEX ios_idx ON table (field, user_id);

and make sure the table is vacuumed often enough (so that the visibility
map is up to date).


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Am 17.07.19 um 14:48 schrieb Tomas Vondra:
> Either that, or try creating a covering index, so that the query can 
> do an
> index-only scan. That might reduce the amount of IO against the table, 
> and
> in the index the data should be located close to each other (same page or
> pages close to each other).
>
> So try something like
>
>    CREATE INDEX ios_idx ON table (field, user_id);
>
> and make sure the table is vacuumed often enough (so that the visibility
> map is up to date). 

yeah, and please don't use varchar(64), but instead UUID for the user_id 
- field to save space on disk and for faster comparison.


Regards, Andreas

-- 
2ndQuadrant - The PostgreSQL Support Company.
www.2ndQuadrant.com

On 17/07/2019 23:03, mayank rupareliya wrote:
[...]
> Table and index are created using following query.
>
> create table fields(user_id varchar(64), field varchar(64));
> CREATE INDEX index_field ON public.fields USING btree (field);

[...]

Any particular reason for using varchar instead of text, for field?

Also, as Andreas pointed out, use UUID for the user_id.


Cheers,
Gavin

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 05:21:49PM +0530, mayank rupareliya wrote:
>*Please recheck with track_io_timing = on in configuration. explain
>(analyze,buffers) with this option will report how many time we spend
>during i/o*
>
>*>   Buffers: shared hit=2 read=31492*
>
>*31492 blocks / 65 sec ~ 480 IOPS, not bad if you are using HDD*
>
>*Your query reads table data from disks (well, or from OS cache). You need
>more RAM for shared_buffers or disks with better performance.*
>
>
>Thanks Sergei..
>*track_io_timing = on helps.. Following is the result after changing that
>config.*
>
>Aggregate  (cost=10075.78..10075.79 rows=1 width=8) (actual
>time=63088.198..63088.199 rows=1 loops=1)
>  Buffers: shared read=31089
>  I/O Timings: read=61334.252
>  ->  Bitmap Heap Scan on fields  (cost=72.61..10069.32 rows=2586 width=0)
>(actual time=69.509..63021.448 rows=31414 loops=1)
>        Recheck Cond: ((field)::text = 'Klein'::text)
>        Heap Blocks: exact=30999
>        Buffers: shared read=31089
>        I/O Timings: read=61334.252
>        ->  Bitmap Index Scan on index_field  (cost=0.00..71.96 rows=2586
>width=0) (actual time=58.671..58.671 rows=31414 loops=1)
>              Index Cond: ((field)::text = 'Klein'::text)
>              Buffers: shared read=90
>              I/O Timings: read=45.316
>Planning Time: 66.435 ms
>Execution Time: 63088.774 ms
>

How did that help? It only gives you insight that it's really the I/O that
takes time. You need to reduce that, somehow.

>
>*So try something like*
>
>*    CREATE INDEX ios_idx ON table (field, user_id);*
>
>*and make sure the table is vacuumed often enough (so that the visibility*
>*map is up to date).*
>
>Thanks Tomas... I tried this and result improved but not much.
>

Well, you haven't shown us the execution plan, so it's hard to check why
it did not help much and give you further advice.

regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

On 18/07/2019 23:51, mayank rupareliya wrote:
[...]
> Thanks Andreas, David, Gavin
>
> /Any particular reason for using varchar instead of text, for field?/ No
>
> use UUID for the user_id.Agreed

/[...]/

/Use of text is preferred, but I can't see it making any significant 
difference to performance -- but I could be wrong!/

/Cheers,
Gavin
/

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 07:43:26PM +0530, mayank rupareliya wrote:
>Well, you haven't shown us the execution plan, so it's hard to check why
>it did not help much and give you further advice.
>
>
>This is the latest query execution with explain after adding indexing on
>both columns.
>
>Aggregate  (cost=174173.57..174173.58 rows=1 width=8) (actual
>time=65087.657..65087.658 rows=1 loops=1)
>  ->  Bitmap Heap Scan on fields  (cost=1382.56..174042.61 rows=52386
>width=0) (actual time=160.340..65024.533 rows=31857 loops=1)
>        Recheck Cond: ((field)::text = 'Champlin'::text)
>        Heap Blocks: exact=31433
>        ->  Bitmap Index Scan on index_field  (cost=0.00..1369.46
>rows=52386 width=0) (actual time=125.078..125.079 rows=31857 loops=1)
>              Index Cond: ((field)::text = 'Champlin'::text)
>Planning Time: 8.595 ms
>Execution Time: 65093.508 ms
>

That very clearly does not use the index-only scan, so it's not
surprising it's not any faster. You need to find out why the planner
makes that decision.

regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services