From: | "Ranga Gopalan" <ranga_gopalan(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | BUG #5543: Poor performance - Index scan backwards not used for order by desc with partitioned tables |
Date: | 2010-07-06 18:20:06 |
Message-ID: | 201007061820.o66IK6Xd099664@wwwmaster.postgresql.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 5543
Logged by: Ranga Gopalan
Email address: ranga_gopalan(at)hotmail(dot)com
PostgreSQL version: 8.4.4
Operating system: Linux x86-64
Description: Poor performance - Index scan backwards not used for
order by desc with partitioned tables
Details:
My problem is regarding ORDER BY / LIMIT query behavior when using
partitioning.
I have a large table (about 100 columns, several million rows) partitioned
by a column called day (which is the date stored as yyyymmdd - say 20100502
for May 2nd 2010 etc.). Say the main table is called FACT_TABLE and each
child table is called FACT_TABLE_yyyymmdd (e.g. FACT_TABLE_20100502,
FACT_TABLE_20100503 etc.) and has an appropriate CHECK constraint created on
it to CHECK (day = yyyymmdd).
The query pattern I am looking at is (I have tried to simplify the column
names for readability):
SELECT F1 from FACT_TABLE
where day >= 20100502 and day <= 20100507 # selecting for a week
ORDER BY F2 desc
LIMIT 100
This is what is happening:
When I query from the specific day's (child) table, I get what I expect - a
descending Index scan and good performance.
# explain select F1 from FACT_TABLE_20100502 where day = 20100502 order by
F2 desc limit 100;
QUERY
PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Limit (cost=0.00..4.81 rows=100 width=41)
-> Index Scan Backward using F2_20100502 on FACT_TABLE_20100502
(cost=0.00..90355.89 rows=1876985 width=41
)
Filter: (day = 20100502)
BUT:
When I do the same query against the parent table it is much slower - two
things seem to happen - one is that the descending scan of the index is not
done and secondly there seems to be a separate sort/limit at the end - i.e.
all data from all partitions is retrieved and then sorted and limited - This
seems to be much less efficient than doing a descending scan on each
partition and limiting the results and then combining and reapplying the
limit at the end.
explain select F1 from FACT_TABLE where day = 20100502 order by F2 desc
limit 100;
QUERY
PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Limit (cost=20000084948.01..20000084948.01 rows=100 width=41)
-> Sort (cost=20000084948.01..20000084994.93 rows=1876986 width=41)
Sort Key: public.FACT_TABLE.F2
-> Result (cost=10000000000.00..20000084230.64 rows=1876986
width=41)
-> Append (cost=10000000000.00..20000084230.64 rows=1876986
width=41)
-> Seq Scan on FACT_TABLE
(cost=10000000000.00..10000000010.02 rows=1 width=186)
Filter: (day = 20100502)
-> Seq Scan on FACT_TABLE_20100502 FACT_TABLE
(cost=10000000000.00..10000084220.62 rows=1876985 width=4
1)
Filter: (day = 20100502)
(9 rows)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-07-06 20:52:16 | Re: ERROR: cannot handle unplanned sub-select |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2010-07-06 16:00:43 | ERROR: cannot handle unplanned sub-select |