Re: Using FTI-Search (likely a more general runtime-puzzle)

Hi!

I am about to evaluate the tsearch module from contrib, but as yet I
haven't succeeded in getting it to run.

I followed instructions on installation of tsearch; the new datatype and
the corresponding functions seem all to be there. So I want to try it
out on some existing data. In table article I want to set up a full-text
index on column text. After adding the column textindex of type txtidx,
I try to fill that column with data, but this just crashes the backend
immediately:

pcgames=# update article set textindex=txt2txtidx(text);
pqReadData() -- backend closed the channel unexpectedly.
This probably means the backend terminated abnormally
before or while processing the request.
The connection to the server was lost. Attempting reset: Failed.

The logfile doesn't really give much information on what exactly
happened:

2002-07-29 13:37:20 [22127] DEBUG: database system is ready
2002-07-29 13:37:46 [22124] DEBUG: server process (pid 22137) was
terminated by signal 11
2002-07-29 13:37:46 [22124] DEBUG: terminating any other active server
processes
2002-07-29 13:37:46 [22124] DEBUG: all server processes terminated;
reinitializing shared memory and semaphores
2002-07-29 13:37:46 [22139] FATAL 1: The database system is starting
up
2002-07-29 13:37:46 [22138] DEBUG: database system was interrupted at
2002-07-29 13:37:20 CEST
2002-07-29 13:37:46 [22138] DEBUG: checkpoint record is at E/3B785168
2002-07-29 13:37:46 [22138] DEBUG: redo record is at E/3B785168; undo
record is at 0/0; shutdown TRUE
2002-07-29 13:37:46 [22138] DEBUG: next transaction id: 179915804;
next oid: 95552489
2002-07-29 13:37:46 [22138] DEBUG: database system was not properly
shut down; automatic recovery in progress
2002-07-29 13:37:46 [22138] DEBUG: ReadRecord: record with zero length
at E/3B7851A8
2002-07-29 13:37:46 [22138] DEBUG: redo is not required
2002-07-29 13:37:48 [22138] DEBUG: database system is ready

Any ideas?

Regards,

Markus

> -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Oleg Bartunov [mailto:oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. Juli 2002 21:20
> An: Markus Wollny
> Betreff: Re: AW: [GENERAL] Using FTI-Search (likely a more
> general runtime-puzzle)
>
>
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Markus Wollny wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > No I haven't as yet - does it provide other/better/more
> features than
> > the fti-module?
> >
>
> Sure, it's designed mostly for full text search and comes from
> Information Retrieval. There is a README file with some intro.
>
> > Regards,
> >
> > Markus
> >
> > -----UrsprУМngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Oleg Bartunov
> > Gesendet: Mi 24.07.2002 19:37
> > An: Markus Wollny
> > Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > Betreff: Re: [GENERAL] Using FTI-Search (likely a more general
> > runtime-puzzle)
> >
> >
> >
> > Markus,
> >
> > have you tried our contrib/tsearch module ?
> >
> > Oleg
> > On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Markus Wollny wrote:
> >
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > I have implemented the full text index feature from /contrib
> > and so far
> > > the results look quite promising. We use it to index several
> > columns of
> > > an article table. The main column is called 'text'. An example
> > for a
> > > search would be to retrieve all the articles with "grand theft
> > auto" in
> > > them somewhere (not necessarily one string but individual
> > words).
> > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> > > --------------------
> > > Case 1: Our Good Old Fashioned Search (TM) over the
> > article-table:
> > >
> > > ANALYZE select distinct (p1.article_id)
> > > from article p1, article p2, article p3
> > > where lower(p1.text) LIKE '%grand%'
> > > AND lower(p2.text) LIKE '%theft%'
> > > AND lower(p3.text) LIKE '%auto%'
> > > AND p1.article_id=p2.article_id
> > > and p1.article_id=p3.article_id
> > >
> > > Unique (cost=3067.03..3067.04 rows=1 width=12) (actual
> > > time=1455.25..1455.44 rows=30 loops=1)
> > > -> Sort (cost=3067.03..3067.03 rows=1 width=12) (actual
> > > time=1455.24..1455.29 rows=30 loops=1)
> > > -> Nested Loop (cost=1098.52..3067.02 rows=1
> > width=12) (actual
> > > time=1211.54..1453.82 rows=30 loops=1)
> > > -> Hash Join (cost=1098.52..2197.47 rows=6
> > width=8)
> > > (actual time=1121.32..1309.23 rows=30 loops=1)
> > > -> Seq Scan on article p2
> > (cost=0.00..1098.43
> > > rows=35 width=4) (actual time=352.03..539.28 rows=30 loops=1)
> > > -> Hash (cost=1098.43..1098.43 rows=35
> > width=4)
> > > (actual time=766.21..766.21 rows=0 loops=1)
> > > -> Seq Scan on article p3
> > > (cost=0.00..1098.43 rows=35 width=4) (actual
> > time=13.63..763.73 rows=411
> > > loops=1)
> > > -> Index Scan using idx0_article on article p1
> > > (cost=0.00..140.79 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=4.79..4.80
> > rows=1
> > > loops=30)
> > > Total runtime: 1456.00 msec
> > >
> > > This is the time, fti needs to beat in order to be of any use
> > to us.
> > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> > > --------------------
> > >
> > > Case 2:
> > > Searching the FTI-Table:
> > > EXPLAIN ANALYZE select distinct (p.article_id)
> > > from article p, article_fti f1, article_fti f2, article_fti f3
> > > where f1.string ='grand' and f2.string ='theft' and f3.string
> > ='auto'
> > > and p.oid=f1.id and p.oid=f2.id and p.oid=f3.id;
> > >
> > >
> > > Unique (cost=39200652.79..39647427.57 rows=17870991 width=20)
> > (actual
> > > time=52506.81..52506.81 rows=0 loops=1)
> > > -> Sort (cost=39200652.79..39200652.79 rows=178709913
> > width=20)
> > > (actual time=52506.81..52506.81 rows=0 loops=1)
> > > -> Merge Join (cost=222181.40..313718.83
> > rows=178709913
> > > width=20) (actual time=52505.69..52505.69 rows=0 loops=1)
> > > -> Merge Join (cost=147175.62..170464.70
> > rows=1855421
> > > width=8) (actual time=37084.36..37084.36 rows=1 loops=1)
> > > -> Sort (cost=73587.81..73587.81
> > rows=19264
> > > width=4) (actual time=22423.27..22423.27 rows=1 loops=1)
> > > -> Seq Scan on article_fti f2
> > > (cost=0.00..72216.86 rows=19264 width=4) (actual
> > time=18297.22..22422.20
> > > rows=97 loops=1)
> > > -> Sort (cost=73587.81..73587.81
> > rows=19264
> > > width=4) (actual time=14661.04..14661.04 rows=1 loops=1)
> > > -> Seq Scan on article_fti f3
> > > (cost=0.00..72216.86 rows=19264 width=4) (actual
> > time=1344.87..14659.59
> > > rows=159 loops=1)
> > > -> Sort (cost=75005.78..75005.78 rows=19264
> > width=12)
> > > (actual time=15421.32..15421.32 rows=0 loops=1)
> > > -> Hash Join (cost=1080.86..73634.84
> > rows=19264
> > > width=12) (actual time=15421.10..15421.10 rows=0 loops=1)
> > > -> Seq Scan on article_fti f1
> > > (cost=0.00..72216.86 rows=19264 width=4) (actual
> > time=4879.59..14306.97
> > > rows=350 loops=1)
> > > -> Hash (cost=1063.29..1063.29
> > rows=7029
> > > width=8) (actual time=1109.79..1109.79 rows=0 loops=1)
> > > -> Seq Scan on article p
> > > (cost=0.00..1063.29 rows=7029 width=8) (actual
> > time=12.20..1076.46
> > > rows=7029 loops=1)
> > > Total runtime: 52507.92 msec
> > >
> > > This is way too long. I don't know why it doesn't use the
> > indexes I gave
> > > to it... If someone has got some idea as to what can be done
> > to optimize
> > > query-planner decisions, I'd be happy to comply. But anyway, I
> > don't
> > > worry about this too much and just force it to use them, once
> > I know its
> > > decision for seqential scan is wrong:
> > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> > > --------------------
> > >
> > > Case 3:
> > > Searching the FTI-Table forcing use of indexes:
> > > SET ENABLE_SEQSCAN=OFF;
> > > EXPLAIN ANALYZE select distinct (p.article_id)
> > > from article p, article_fti f1, article_fti f2, article_fti f3
> > > where f1.string ='grand' and f2.string ='theft' and f3.string
> > ='auto'
> > > and p.oid=f1.id and p.oid=f2.id and p.oid=f3.id;
> > > SET ENABLE_SEQSCAN=ON;
> > >
> > > NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
> > >
> > > Unique (cost=5341.68..5342.61 rows=37 width=20) (actual
> > > time=40.52..41.83 rows=65 loops=1)
> > > -> Sort (cost=5341.68..5341.68 rows=372 width=20) (actual
> > > time=40.52..40.96rows=376 loops=1)
> > > -> Nested Loop (cost=3067.05..5325.79 rows=372
> > width=20)
> > > (actual time=14.02..38.38 rows=376 loops=1)
> > > -> Merge Join (cost=3067.05..3084.32 rows=372
> > width=12)
> > > (actualtime=13.95..20.45 rows=376 loops=1)
> > > -> Merge Join (cost=2044.70..2054.37
> > rows=502
> > > width=8) (actual time=5.75..7.81 rows=176 loops=1)
> > > -> Sort (cost=1022.35..1022.35
> > rows=678
> > > width=4) (actual time=2.31..2.44 rows=97 loops=1)
> > > -> Index Scan using
> > > article_fti_string_idx on article_fti f2 (cost=0.00..990.47
> > rows=678
> > > width=4) (actual time=0.16..1.74 rows=97 loops=1)
> > > -> Sort (cost=1022.35..1022.35
> > rows=678
> > > width=4) (actual time=3.42..3.66 rows=194 loops=1)
> > > -> Index Scan using
> > > article_fti_string_idx on article_fti f3 (cost=0.00..990.47
> > rows=678
> > > width=4) (actual time=0.13..2.53 rows=159 loops=1)
> > > -> Sort (cost=1022.35..1022.35 rows=678
> > width=4)
> > > (actual time=8.18..8.89 rows=532 loops=1)
> > > -> Index Scan using
> > article_fti_string_idx on
> > > article_fti f1 (cost=0.00..990.47 rows=678 width=4) (actual
> > > time=0.13..5.98 rows=350 loops=1)
> > > -> Index Scan using article_oid_idx on article
> > p
> > > (cost=0.00..6.01 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.03..0.03
> > rows=1
> > > loops=376)
> > > Total runtime: 42.41 msec
> > >
> > > Not that's much more like it :) This query returns exactly 65
> > numbers.
> > > But really we want not only the article-IDs, but also some
> > info on the
> > > article as well:
> > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> > > --------------------
> > >
> > > Case 3b:
> > > Retrieving additional article-info:
> > >
> > > SET ENABLE_SEQSCAN=OFF;
> > > EXPLAIN ANALYZE
> > > SELECT article_id, site_id, article_type, topstory, headline,
> > published
> > > from article where article_id in (
> > > select distinct (p.article_id)
> > > from article p, article_fti f1, article_fti f2, article_fti f3
> > > where f1.string ='grand' and f2.string ='theft' and f3.string
> > ='auto'
> > > and p.oid=f1.id and p.oid=f2.id and p.oid=f3.id);
> > > SET ENABLE_SEQSCAN=ON;
> > >
> > > NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
> > >
> > > Seq Scan on article (cost=100000000.00..137645255.53
> > rows=3523
> > > width=77) (actual time=1756.30..3720.44 rows=65 loops=1)
> > > SubPlan
> > > -> Materialize (cost=5342.61..5342.61 rows=37 width=20)
> > (actual
> > > time=0.17..0.28 rows=65 loops=7046)
> > > -> Unique (cost=5341.68..5342.61 rows=37 width=20)
> > (actual
> > > time=1182.07..1183.29 rows=65 loops=1)
> > > -> Sort (cost=5341.68..5341.68 rows=372
> > width=20)
> > > (actual time=1182.06..1182.52 rows=376 loops=1)
> > > -> Nested Loop (cost=3067.05..5325.79
> > rows=372
> > > width=20) (actual time=318.55..1179.04 rows=376 loops=1)
> > > -> Merge Join
> > (cost=3067.05..3084.32
> > > rows=372 width=12) (actual time=300.97..314.39 rows=376
> > loops=1)
> > > -> Merge Join
> > (cost=2044.70..2054.37
> > > rows=502 width=8) (actual time=159.24..163.45 rows=176
> > loops=1)
> > > -> Sort
> > (cost=1022.35..1022.35
> > > rows=678 width=4) (actual time=71.23..71.45 rows=97 loops=1)
> > > -> Index Scan
> > using
> > > article_fti_string_idx on article_fti f2 (cost=0.00..990.47
> > rows=678
> > > width=4) (actual time=1.46..69.08 rows=97 loops=1)
> > > -> Sort
> > (cost=1022.35..1022.35
> > > rows=678 width=4) (actual time=87.97..88.39 rows=194 loops=1)
> > > -> Index Scan
> > using
> > > article_fti_string_idx on article_fti f3 (cost=0.00..990.47
> > rows=678
> > > width=4) (actual time=0.19..85.06 rows=159 loops=1)
> > > -> Sort
> > (cost=1022.35..1022.35
> > > rows=678 width=4) (actual time=141.70..143.03 rows=532
> > loops=1)
> > > -> Index Scan using
> > > article_fti_string_idx on article_fti f1 (cost=0.00..990.47
> > rows=678
> > > width=4) (actual time=0.17..138.95 rows=350 loops=1)
> > > -> Index Scan using
> > article_oid_idx on
> > > article p (cost=0.00..6.01 rows=1 width=8) (actual
> > time=1.65..2.27
> > > rows=1 loops=376)
> > > Total runtime: 3722.74 msec
> > >
> > > Whoa! Why is that? How come this takes so extremely much
> > longer?
> > > Because...
> > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> > > --------------------
> > >
> > > Case 3c:
> > > If I just select all the ids, I get a total runtime of 42.41
> > msec. And
> > > if I do a select ... where article_id in (all the results from
> > case3):
> > >
> > > explain analyze SELECT article_id, site_id, article_type,
> > topstory,
> > > headline, published from article where article_id in
> > >
> >
> (8965,8966,9701,10204,11114,11788,11941,12339,12685,12696,1278
> 4,13324,14
> > >
> >
> 049,30982,31697,31924,31941,31944,32470,36810,37950,38913,3973
> 6,40470,41
> > >
> >
> 330,45651,47050,47997,49692,51253,51730,51817,52111,52233,5265
> 3,52770,53
> > >
> >
> 090,54410,54812,54890,55310,55974,56051,56590,56610,56630,5695
> 0,57210,57
> > >
> >
> 690,59670,60951,62630,62650,63070,63130,63551,63570,65691,6571
> 0,65771,66
> > > 050,66490,66531,67030,67110);
> > >
> > > NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
> > >
> > > Index Scan using idx0_article, idx0_article, idx0_article,
> > idx0_article,
> > > idx0_article, idx0_article, idx0_article, idx0_article,
> > idx0_article,
> > > idx0_article, idx0_article, idx0_article, idx0_article,
> > idx0_article,
> > > idx0_article, idx0article, idx0_article, idx0_article,
> > idx0_article,
> > > idx0_article, idx0_article, idx0_article, idx0_article,
> > idx0_article,
> > > idx0_article, idx0_article, idx0_article, idx0_article,
> > idx0_article,
> > > idx0_article, idx0_article, idx0_article, idx0_article,
> > idx0_article,
> > > idx0_article, idx0_article, idx0_article, idx0_article,
> > idx0_article,
> > > idx0_article, idx0_article, idx0_article, idx0_article,
> > idx0_article,
> > > idx0_article, idx0_article, idx0_article, idx0_article,
> > idx0_article,
> > > idx0_article, idx0_article, idx0_article, idx0_article,
> > idx0_article,
> > > idx0_article, idx0_article, idx0_article, idx0_article,
> > idx0_article,
> > > idx0_article, idx0_article, idx0_article, idx0_article,
> > idx0_article,
> > > idx0_article on article (cost=0.00..378.61 rows=67 width=77)
> > (actual
> > > time=0.08..5.17 rows=65 loops=1)
> > > Total runtime: 6.15 msec
> > >
> > > I get just another 6.15msec.
> > >
> > > Now I do think that the total runtime of 3b should really be
> > 3+3c, which
> > > amounts to roughly 50msec, but not nearly 4 seconds. What am I
> > doing
> > > wrong?
> > >
> > > Thanks for your advice!
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Markus
> > >
> > > ---------------------------(end of
> > broadcast)---------------------------
> > > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to
> > majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Oleg
> > _____________________________________________________________
> > Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
> > Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
> > Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
> > phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
> >
> >
> >
>
> Regards,
> Oleg
> _____________________________________________________________
> Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
> Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
> Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
> phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
>
>