Re: Optimization idea for long IN() lists

From: Maxim Boguk <maxim(dot)boguk(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Optimization idea for long IN() lists
Date: 2014-08-09 04:22:00
Message-ID: CAK-MWwRR80afBo6UHk201J+Q+gz8Wxg9kjE0-PFMtP3j15oZOQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 5:15 AM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> So one thing we tell users who have chronically long IN() lists is that
> they should create a temporary table and join against that instead.
> Other than not having the code, is there a reason why PostgreSQL
> shouldn't do something like this behind the scenes, automatically?
>
>
Hi Josh,

I know that problem for many years.
There are some workaround which doesn't require using the temporary tables
(and I used that approach quite a lot when performance matter):

Instead of using:
SELECT * FROM sometable
WHERE
somefield IN (val1, val2, ...)
AND other_filters;

Query could be written as:
SELECT * FROM sometable
JOIN (VALUES ((val1), (val2) ...)) AS v(somefield) ON
v.somefield=sometable.somefield
WHERE
other_filters;

When there no index on somefield query plans would look like as:

Original query:

Filter: (somefield = ANY ('{...}'::integer[]))

vs optimized query:

Hash Join (cost=0.25..117.89 rows=22 width=59) (actual time=5.332..5.332
rows=0 loops=1)
Hash Cond: (sometable.somefield = "*VALUES*".somefield)
...
-> Hash (cost=0.12..0.12 rows=10 width=4) (actual time=0.010..0.010
rows=10 loops=1)
Buckets: 1024 Batches: 1 Memory Usage: 1kB
-> Values Scan on "*VALUES*" (cost=0.00..0.12 rows=10 width=4)
(actual time=0.001..0.003 rows=10 loops=1)

In synthetic data I observed the following performance results (fully
in-memory data with integer values):

List length IN Performance JOIN VALUES Performance
10 5.39ms 5.38ms
100 9.74ms 5.49ms
1000 53.02ms 9.89ms
10000 231.10ms 13.14ms

So starting from 10 elements VALUES/HASH JOIN approach is clear winner.
In case of the text literals IN list performance difference even more
obvious (~2 order of magnitude for 10000 list).

However, if IN list used for the primary key lookup - there are no visible
performance difference between these two approaches.

So yes there are some space for optimization of "Filter: (somefield = ANY
('{...}'::integer[]))" via hashing.

--
Maxim Boguk
Senior Postgresql DBA
http://www.postgresql-consulting.ru/ <http://www.postgresql-consulting.com/>

Phone RU: +7 910 405 4718
Phone AU: +61 45 218 5678

LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/maksym-boguk/80/b99/b1b
Skype: maxim.boguk
Jabber: maxim(dot)boguk(at)gmail(dot)com
МойКруг: http://mboguk.moikrug.ru/

"People problems are solved with people.
If people cannot solve the problem, try technology.
People will then wish they'd listened at the first stage."

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message 楊新波 2014-08-12 02:59:02 how does the planer to estimate row when i use order by and group by
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2014-08-08 19:15:36 Optimization idea for long IN() lists