Re: Very slow Query compared to Oracle / SQL - Server

On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 05:57:19PM +0200, Semen Yefimenko wrote:
> For testing purposes I set up a separate postgres 13.2 instance on windows.
> To my surprise, it works perfectly fine. Also indexes, have about 1/4 of
> the size they had on 12.6.

In pg13, indexes are de-duplicated by default.

But I suspect the performance is better because data was reload, and the
smaller indexes are a small, additional benefit.

> This explain plan is on a SSD local postgres 13.2 instance with default
> settings and not setting random_page_cost.

> -> Parallel Bitmap Heap Scan on schema.logtable (cost=61.84..16243.96 rows=1845 width=2638) (actual time=0.350..2.419 rows=2362 loops=3)
> Output: column1, .. ,column54
> Recheck Cond: ((logtable.entrytype = 4000) OR (logtable.entrytype = 4001) OR (logtable.entrytype = 4002))
> Filter: (logtable.tfnlogent_archivestatus <= 1)
> Heap Blocks: exact=2095
> Buffers: shared hit=2109

In the pg13 instance, the index *and heap* scans hit only 2109 buffers (16MB).

On your original instance, it took 300k buffers (2.4GB), mostly uncached and
read from disk.

> This will still take some time so I will update once I have this tested.
> Seems like there is something skewed going on with the development database
> so far.

I still think you should try to cluster, or at least reindex (which cluster
also does) and then analyze. The bitmap scan is probably happening because 1)
you're reading a large number of tuples; and, 2) the index is "uncorrelated",
so a straight index scan would randomly access 300k disk pages, which is much
worse even than reading 2400MB to get just 16MB of data.

--
Justin