Re: Query performance issue

On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 2:06 AM yudhi s <learnerdatabase99(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 12:32 AM Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>> To be frank, there is so much wrong with this query that it is hard to
>> know where to start. But a few top items:
>>
>> * Make sure all of the tables involved have been analyzed. You might want
>> to bump default_statistics_target up and see if that helps.
>>
>> * As mentioned already, increase work_mem, as you have things spilling to
>> disk (e.g. external merge Disk: 36280kB)
>>
>> * Don't use the "FROM table1, table2, table3" syntax but use "FROM table1
>> JOIN table2 ON (...) JOIN table3 ON (...)
>>
>> * Try not to use subselects. Things like WHERE x IN (SELECT ...) are
>> expensive and hard to optimize.
>>
>> * You have useless GROUP BY clauses in there. Remove to simplify the query
>>
>> * There is no LIMIT. Does the client really need all 135,214 rows?
>>
>>
>>
> I tried running the query by removing both the "group by" from the inner
> subqueries (I think the initial thought was that they will give distinct
> records to the outer query and will thus help), and added limit 500 at the
> last and also set the work_mem to 2GB for that session before running the
> query. But seeing the response increased to ~5 seconds (from ~3.1 seconds
> earlier). Below I have updated the execution plan for the same at the last
> section.
>
> https://gist.github.com/databasetech0073/746353a9e76d5e29b2fc6abdc80cdef8
>
> Again , not able to clearly understand the third point you said below. Can
> you please clarify a bit more. Do you mean we should write it as exists
> /not exists rather IN and NOT IN and that will improve the performance? I
> hope the third point doesn't matter much as we have all equijoin used here.
> Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> *"Try not to use subselects. Things like WHERE x IN (SELECT ...) are
> expensive and hard to optimize*."
>
> Additionally in the plan which mysql makes and showing the highest
> response time, is it suffering because of differences of the speed of the
> underlying IO/storage or is it just because of the optimization features
> which are available in postgres and not there in mysql ? Trying to
> understand if it can be identified from the execution plan itself.
>

Additionally, I see below differences, when I compare two specific lines of
the plan which fetches data using the same index in both posgres and mysql,
so does it point that the speed in mysql is slower as compared to postgres.
And thus is it possible that the underlying infrastructure is playing a
role here in the mysql slowness too and that might be the key one here to
first address for mysql
OR its any optimization feature which helps postgres to give it an edge in
performance here over mysql?

In mysql plan:-
-> Index lookup on EX_STS using EX_STS_INDEX (AID=b3.AID, RC_ID=b3.RC_ID,
RC_VNB=b3.RC_VNB) (cost=0.43 rows=2) (actual time=0.014..0.021 rows=2
loops=70904)
VS
In postgres plan:-
-> Index Scan using EX_STS_INDEX on RCE_STS EX_STS (cost=0.42..0.82 rows=1
width=424) (actual time=0.006..0.007 rows=2 loops=70904)

**************

In mysql plan
-> Covering index lookup on mns using M_INF_AID_index
(AID='XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX') (cost=9187.54 rows=72748) (actual
time=0.058..19.637 rows=35980 loops=1)
-> Filter:
(RNS.ASID = 'XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX') (cost=43.50 rows=42) (actual
time=0.042..0.218 rows=97 loops=1)
VS
In postgres plan
-> Bitmap Index Scan on M_INF_AID_index (cost=0.00..406.98 rows=36074
width=0) (actual time=0.790..0.790 rows=35980 loops=1)
Index Cond: ((AID)::text =
'XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX'::text)