From: | Guy Thornley <guy(at)esphion(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Why does a simple query not use an obvious index? |
Date: | 2004-08-30 08:19:59 |
Message-ID: | 20040830081959.GC3714@conker.esphion.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 06:03:43PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> select somefield from sometable where timestampfield > now()-'60
> >> seconds'::interval
>
> This is a FAQ, but since the archives don't seem to be up at the moment,
> here's the answer once again:
>
> The expression "now() - something" is not a constant, so the planner
> is faced with "timestampfield > unknownvalue". Its default assumption
> about the number of rows that will match is much too high to make an
> indexscan look profitable (from memory, I think it guesses that about
> a third of the table will match...).
Ok; this explains some really wierd stuff I've been seeing.
However, I'm seeing breakage of the form mentioned by the original poster
even when the query uses a _constant_ timestamp: [Postgres 7.4.3]
ntais# \d detect.stats
Table "detect.stats"
Column | Type | Modifiers
--------------+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------
anomaly_id | integer | not null
at | timestamp with time zone | not null default ('now'::text)::timestamp(6) with time zone
resolution | real | default 1.0
values | real[] |
stat_type_id | integer | not null
Indexes:
"stats_pkey" primary key, btree (anomaly_id, stat_type_id, "at")
"stats__ends_at" btree (stats__ends_at("at", resolution, "values"))
Foreign-key constraints:
"$1" FOREIGN KEY (anomaly_id) REFERENCES anomalies(anomaly_id) ON DELETE CASCADE
"$2" FOREIGN KEY (stat_type_id) REFERENCES stat_types(stat_type_id)
ntais=# SET enable_seqscan = on;
SET
ntais=# EXPLAIN ANALYZE
SELECT anomaly_id, stat_type_id
FROM detect.stats
WHERE detect.stats__ends_at(at, resolution, values) > '2004-08-30 16:21:09+12'::timestamptz
ORDER BY anomaly_id, stat_type_id
;
QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sort (cost=602473.59..608576.72 rows=2441254 width=8) (actual time=198577.407..198579.136 rows=6152 loops=1)
Sort Key: anomaly_id, stat_type_id
-> Seq Scan on stats (cost=0.00..248096.42 rows=2441254 width=8) (actual time=198299.685..198551.460 rows=6152 loops=1)
Filter: (stats__ends_at("at", resolution, "values") > '2004-08-30 16:21:09+12'::timestamp with time zone)
Total runtime: 198641.649 ms
(5 rows)
ntais=# EXPLAIN ANALYZE
SELECT anomaly_id, stat_type_id
FROM detect.stats
WHERE detect.stats__ends_at(at, resolution, values) > '2004-08-30
16:21:09+12'::timestamptz
ORDER BY anomaly_id, stat_type_id
;
QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sort (cost=10166043.26..10172146.40 rows=2441254 width=8) (actual time=44.710..46.661 rows=6934 loops=1)
Sort Key: anomaly_id, stat_type_id
-> Index Scan using stats__ends_at on stats (cost=0.00..9811666.09 rows=2441254 width=8) (actual time=0.075..24.702 rows=6934 loops=1)
Index Cond: (stats__ends_at("at", resolution, "values") > '2004-08-30 16:21:09+12'::timestamp with time zone)
Total runtime: 50.354 ms
(5 rows)
ntais=# SELECT count(*) FROM detect.stats;
count
---------
7326151
(1 row)
Ive done repeated ANALYZE's, both table-specific and database-wide, and get
the same result every time.
For us, a global 'enable_seqscan = off' in postgresql.conf is the way to go.
You occasionally see an odd plan while developing a query (eg: scanning an
index with no contraint to simply get ORDER BY). Usually thats a broken
query/index, and I simply fix it.
Guy Thornley
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-30 15:41:02 | Re: Why does a simple query not use an obvious index? |
Previous Message | Mr Pink | 2004-08-30 07:38:41 | Re: Why does a simple query not use an obvious index? |