Re: SELECT AND AGG huge tables

From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: houmanb <houman(at)gmx(dot)at>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SELECT AND AGG huge tables
Date: 2012-10-15 21:09:51
Message-ID: CAHyXU0zjK1eTimyo0TwOSY-gpt=kFH+TKwcKGcajJtM0NUzskw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:59 PM, houmanb <houman(at)gmx(dot)at> wrote:
> Dear all,
> We have a DB containing transactional data.
> There are about *50* to *100 x 10^6* rows in one *huge* table.
> We are using postgres 9.1.6 on linux with a *SSD card on PCIex* providing us
> a constant seeking time.
>
> A typical select (see below) takes about 200 secs. As the database is the
> backend for a web-based reporting facility 200 to 500 or even more secs
> response times are not acceptable for the customer.
>
> Is there any way to speed up select statements like this:
>
> SELECT
> SUM(T.x),
> SUM(T.y),
> SUM(T.z),
> AVG(T.a),
> AVG(T.b)
> FROM T
> GROUP BY
> T.c
> WHERE
> T.creation_date=$SOME_DATE;
>
> There is an Index on T.c. But would it help to partition the table by T.c?
> It should be mentioned, that T.c is actually a foreign key to a Table
> containing a
> tiny number of rows (15 rows representing different companies).
> my postgres.conf is actually the default one, despite the fact that we
> increased the value for work_mem=128MB

it might help a little bit or a lot -- it depends on the plan. I'd
also advise raising shared buffers to around 25% of ram for queries
like this.

what's your server load look like while aggregating -- are you storage
or cpu bound? which ssd? how much data churn do you have?

merlin

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matheus de Oliveira 2012-10-15 21:42:02 Re: SELECT AND AGG huge tables
Previous Message houmanb 2012-10-15 20:59:16 SELECT AND AGG huge tables