Re: Slow update

Hello,

- did you vacuum your tables recently ?

- What I miss in your query is a check for the rows that do not need to
be udated:

AND NOT (service = b.service
AND status = b.status
AND has_notification = gateway_id NOT IN (4,101,102)
AND operator = COALESCE( b.actual_target_network_id,
b.requested_target_network_id )


depending on the fraction of rows that are already up to date, the might
fasten your process quite a lot...


Hope To Help,

Marc Mamin

________________________________

From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Herouth Maoz
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 10:30 AM
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: [GENERAL] Slow update

Hello.

I have a daily process that synchronizes our reports database from our
production databases. In the past few days, it happened a couple of
times that an update query took around 7-8 hours to complete, which
seems a bit excessive. This is the query:

UPDATE rb
SET service = b.service,
status = b.status,
has_notification = gateway_id NOT IN (4,101,102),
operator = COALESCE(
b.actual_target_network_id,
b.requested_target_network_id
)
FROM sms.billing b
WHERE b.time_arrived >= :date_start
AND rb.time_stamp >= :date_start
AND rb.delivered = 0
AND rb.sms_user = b.user_id
AND rb.reference = b.user_reference
AND OVERLAY( rb.msisdn placing '972' from 1 for 1 ) = b.msisdn
AND NOT mo_billed
AND system_id <> 6 -- Exclude Corporate, as it aleady has
service/status
;

The variable ":date_start" is set to a date 3 days ago.

I ran explain for this query and it gave me this:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Nested Loop (cost=21567.12..854759.82 rows=1 width=210)
Join Filter: (((rb.sms_user)::text = (b.user_id)::text) AND
(rb.reference = b.user_reference))
-> Bitmap Heap Scan on rb (cost=21546.02..23946.16 rows=819
width=198)
Recheck Cond: ((delivered = 0) AND (time_stamp >= '2009-01-18
00:00:00'::timestamp without time zone) AND (time_stamp < '2009-01-21
00:00:00'::timestamp without time zone))
Filter: ((NOT mo_billed) AND (system_id <> 6))
-> BitmapAnd (cost=21546.02..21546.02 rows=819 width=0)
-> Bitmap Index Scan on rb_delivered_ind
(cost=0.00..1419.99 rows=45768 width=0)
Index Cond: (delivered = 0)
-> Bitmap Index Scan on rb_timestamp_ind
(cost=0.00..20125.37 rows=188994 width=0)
Index Cond: ((time_stamp >= '2009-01-18
00:00:00'::timestamp without time zone) AND (time_stamp < '2009-01-21
00:00:00'::timestamp without time zone))
-> Bitmap Heap Scan on billing b (cost=21.10..1004.77 rows=351
width=49)
Recheck Cond: ((b.msisdn)::text =
(("substring"((rb.msisdn)::text, 1, 0) || '972'::text) ||
"substring"((rb.msisdn)::text, 2)))
Filter: ((b.time_arrived >= '2009-01-18 00:00:00'::timestamp
without time zone) AND (b.time_arrived < '2009-01-21
00:00:00'::timestamp without time zone))
-> Bitmap Index Scan on billing_msisdn_sme_reference
(cost=0.00..21.10 rows=351 width=0)
Index Cond: ((b.msisdn)::text =
(("substring"((rb.msisdn)::text, 1, 0) || '972'::text) ||
"substring"((rb.msisdn)::text, 2)))

I'm not an expert on reading plans, but it seems to me that it uses
indices on both tables that participate in this query, so it shouldn't
take such a long time.

The number of records in the table rb for the past three days is 386833.
On the sms.billing table it seems to select the index on the msisdn and
sme_reference fields and use it partially (only using the msisdn field).
Looking at that table, the frequency of each value in the msisdn field
is at most 17678 for the current data, where mostly it's a couple of
thousands. How can this take so long?

Thanks,
Herouth