Re: Help with rewriting query

On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 18:26:09 -0700,
Junaili Lie <junaili(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi Bruno,
> I followed your suggestion.
> The query plan shows that it uses the index (id, person_id). However,
> the execution time is still slow. I have to do ctl-C to stop it.
> Maybe something is wrong with my postgresql config.
> It's running Solaris on dual Opteron, 4GB.
> I allocated around 128MB for sorting and more than 80% for
> effective_cache_size and shared_buffers = 32768.
> Any further ideas is much appreciated.

It might be useful to see that plan and the actual query you used. There were
only 569 entries in the people table, so I find it hard to believe that an
index look up per person is taking so long that you need to cancel the query.

>
>
>
>
> On 6/8/05, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 15:48:27 -0700,
> > Junaili Lie <junaili(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > The suggested query below took forever when I tried it.
> > > In addition, as suggested by Tobias, I also tried to create index on
> > > food(p_id, id), but still no goal (same query plan).
> > > Here is the explain:
> > > TEST1=# explain select f.p_id, max(f.id) from Food f, Person p where
> > > (f.p_id = p.id) group by p.id;
> >
> > The above is going to require reading all the food table (assuming no
> > orphaned records), so the plan below seems reasonable.
> >
> > > QUERY PLAN
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > GroupAggregate (cost=0.00..214585.51 rows=569 width=16)
> > > -> Merge Join (cost=0.00..200163.50 rows=2884117 width=16)
> > > Merge Cond: ("outer".id = "inner".p_id)
> > > -> Index Scan using person_pkey on person p
> > > (cost=0.00..25.17 rows=569 width=8)
> > > -> Index Scan using person_id_food_index on food f
> > > (cost=0.00..164085.54 rows=2884117 width=16)
> > > (5 rows)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > TEST1=# explain select p.id, (Select f.id from food f where
> > > f.p_id=p.id order by f.id desc limit 1) from person p;
> >
> > Using a subselect seems to be the best hope of getting better performance.
> > I think you almost got it right, but in order to use the index on
> > (p_id, id) you need to order by f.p_id desc, f.id desc. Postgres won't
> > deduce this index can be used because f.p_id is constant in the subselect,
> > you need to give it some help.
> >
> > > QUERY PLAN
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Seq Scan on Person p (cost=100000000.00..100007015.24 rows=569 width=8)
> > > SubPlan
> > > -> Limit (cost=0.00..12.31 rows=1 width=8)
> > > -> Index Scan Backward using food_pkey on food f
> > > (cost=0.00..111261.90 rows=9042 width=8)
> > > Filter: (p_id = $0)
> > > (5 rows)
> > >
> > > any ideas or suggestions is appreciate.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 6/8/05, Tobias Brox <tobias(at)nordicbet(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > [Junaili Lie - Wed at 12:34:32PM -0700]
> > > > > select f.p_id, max(f.id) from person p, food f where p.id=f.p_id group
> > > > > by f.p_id will work.
> > > > > But I understand this is not the most efficient way. Is there another
> > > > > way to rewrite this query? (maybe one that involves order by desc
> > > > > limit 1)
> > > >
> > > > eventually, try something like
> > > >
> > > > select p.id,(select f.id from food f where f.p_id=p.id order by f.id desc limit 1)
> > > > from person p
> > > >
> > > > not tested, no warranties.
> > > >
> > > > Since subqueries can be inefficient, use "explain analyze" to see which one
> > > > is actually better.
> > > >
> > > > This issue will be solved in future versions of postgresql.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Tobias Brox, +47-91700050
> > > > Tallinn
> > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > > TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
> > > joining column's datatypes do not match
> >