Re: Explain plan changes - IN CLAUSE ( Passing direct values Vs INNER Query )

On 5/7/20 4:19 AM, Amarendra Konda wrote:
> Hi,
>
> PostgreSQL version : PostgreSQL 9.6.2 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled
> by gcc (GCC) 4.8.3 20140911 (Red Hat 4.8.3-9), 64-bit
>
> We have noticed huge difference interms of execution plan ( response
> time) , When we pass the direct values  Vs  inner query to IN clause.
>
> High level details of the use case are as follows
>
> * As part of the SQL there are 2 tables named Process_instance
> (master) and Process_activity ( child)
> * Wanted to fetch TOP 50 rows from  Process_activity table for the
> given values of the Process_instance.
> * When we used Inner Join / Inner query ( query1)  between parent
> table and child table , LIMIT is not really taking in to account.
> Instead it is fetching more rows and columns that required, and
> finally limiting the result

It is doing what you told it to do which is SELECT all
process_instance_i's for user_id='317079413683604' and app_id =
'427380312000560' and then filtering further. I am going to guess that
if you run the inner query alone you will find it returns ~23496 rows.
You might have better results if you an actual join between
process_activity and process_instance. Something like below(obviously
not tested):

SELECT
pa.process_activity_id
FROM
process_activity pa
JOIN
process_instance pi
ON
pa.process_instance_id = pi.process_instance_id
WHERE
pa.app_id = '427380312000560'
AND
pa.created > '1970-01-01 00:00:00'
AND
pi.user_id = '317079413683604'
ORDER BY
pa.process_instance_id,
pa.created
LIMIT 50;

The second query is not equivalent as you are not filtering on user_id
and you are filtering on only three process_instance_id's.

> *
>
>
> *Query1*
>
> web_1=> EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, COSTS, VERBOSE, BUFFERS) SELECT
> pa.process_activity_id  FROM process_activity pa WHERE pa.app_id =
> '427380312000560' AND pa.created > '1970-01-01 00:00:00' AND
> pa.process_instance_id in *_(SELECT pi.process_instance_id FROM
> process_instance pi WHERE pi.user_id = '317079413683604' AND pi.app_id =
> '427380312000560')_* ORDER BY pa.process_instance_id,pa.created limit 50;
>
>
>                                                                 QUERY PLAN
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Limit  (cost=1071.47..1071.55 rows=31 width=24) (actual
> time=85.958..85.991 rows=50 loops=1)
>    Output: pa.process_activity_id, pa.process_instance_id, pa.created
>    Buffers: shared hit=43065
>    ->  Sort  (cost=1071.47..1071.55 rows=31 width=24) (actual
> time=85.956..85.971 rows=50 loops=1)
>          Output: pa.process_activity_id, pa.process_instance_id, pa.created
>          Sort Key: pa.process_instance_id, pa.created
>          Sort Method: top-N heapsort  Memory: 28kB
>          Buffers: shared hit=43065
>          ->  Nested Loop  (cost=1.14..1070.70 rows=31 width=24) (actual
> time=0.031..72.183 rows=46992 loops=1)
>                Output: pa.process_activity_id, pa.process_instance_id,
> pa.created
>                Buffers: shared hit=43065
>                ->  Index Scan using fki_conv_konotor_user_user_id on
> public.process_instance pi  (cost=0.43..2.66 rows=1 width=8) (actual
> time=0.010..0.013 rows=2 loops=1)
>                      Output: pi.process_instance_id
>                      Index Cond: (pi.user_id = '317079413683604'::bigint)
>                      Filter: (pi.app_id = '427380312000560'::bigint)
>                      Buffers: shared hit=5
>                ->  Index Scan using
> process_activity_process_instance_id_app_id_created_idx on
> public.process_activity pa  (cost=0.70..1053.80 rows=1425 width=24)
> (actual time=0.015..20.702 rows=*23496* loops=2)
> * Output: pa.process_activity_id, pa.process_activity_type,
> pa.voice_url, pa.process_activity_user_id, pa.app_id,
> pa.process_instance_id, pa.alias, pa.read_by_user, pa.source,
> pa.label_category_id, pa.label_id, pa.csat_response_id,
> pa.process_activity_fragments, pa.created, pa.updated, pa.rule_id, pa.market
> ing_reply_id, pa.delivered_at, pa.reply_fragments, pa.status_fragment,
> pa.internal_meta, pa.interaction_id, pa.do_not_translate,
> pa.should_translate, pa.in_reply_to*
>                      Index Cond: ((pa.process_instance_id =
> pi.process_instance_id) AND (pa.app_id = '427380312000560'::bigint) AND
> (pa.created > '1970-01-01 00:00:00'::timestamp without time zone))
>                      Buffers: shared hit=43060
>  Planning time: 0.499 ms
>  Execution time: 86.040 ms
> (22 rows)
>
> *_Query 2_*
>
> web_1=>  EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, COSTS, VERBOSE, BUFFERS) SELECT
> pa.process_activity_id AS m_process_activity_id FROM process_activity m
> WHERE pa.app_id = '427380312000560' AND pa.created > '1970-01-01
> 00:00:00' AND pa.process_instance_id in
> (*240117466018927,325820556706970,433008275197305*) ORDER BY
> pa.process_instance_id,pa.created limit 50;
>
>                                    QUERY PLAN
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Limit  (cost=0.70..37.66 rows=50 width=24) (actual time=0.023..0.094
> rows=50 loops=1)
>    Output: process_activity_id, process_instance_id, created
>    Buffers: shared hit=50
>    ->  Index Scan using
> process_activity_process_instance_id_app_id_created_idx on
> public.process_activity pa  (cost=0.70..3124.97 rows=4226 width=24)
> (actual time=0.022..0.079 *rows=50* loops=1)
>          Output: process_activity_id, process_instance_id, created
>          Index Cond: ((pa.process_instance_id = ANY
> ('{140117466018927,225820556706970,233008275197305}'::bigint[])) AND
> (pa.app_id = '427380312000560'::bigint) AND (pa.created > '1970-01-01
> 00:00:00'::timestamp without time zone))
>          Buffers: shared hit=50
>  Planning time: 0.167 ms
>  Execution time: 0.137 ms
> (9 rows)
>
>
> Can someone explain
>
> * Why It is fetching more columns and more rows, incase of inner query ?
> * Is there any option to really limit values with INNER JOIN, INNER
> query ? If yes, can you please share information on this ?
>
> Thanks in advance for your time and suggestions.
>
> Regards, Amar

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com