Re: Odd behavior with indices

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:43 PM, joe meiring <josephmeiring(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> Also available on S.O.:
>
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/35658238/postgres-odd-behavior-with-indices
>
> I've got a datavalue table with ~200M rows or so, with indices on both
> site_id and parameter_id. I need to execute queries like "return all
> sites with data" and "return all parameters with data". The site table
> has only 200 rows or so, and the parameter table has only 100 or so rows.
>
> The site query is fast and uses the index:
>
> EXPLAIN ANALYZEselect *from sitewhere exists (
> select 1 from datavalue
> where datavalue.site_id = site.id limit 1);
>
> Seq Scan on site (cost=0.00..64.47 rows=64 width=113) (actual time=0.046..1.106 rows=89 loops=1)
> Filter: (SubPlan 1)
> Rows Removed by Filter: 39
> SubPlan 1
> -> Limit (cost=0.44..0.47 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.008..0.008 rows=1 loops=128)
> -> Index Only Scan using ix_datavalue_site_id on datavalue (cost=0.44..8142.71 rows=248930 width=0) (actual time=0.008..0.008 rows=1 loops=128)
> Index Cond: (site_id = site.id)
> Heap Fetches: 0
> Planning time: 0.361 ms
> Execution time: 1.149 ms
>
> The same query for parameters is rather slow and does NOT use the index:
>
> EXPLAIN ANALYZEselect *from parameterwhere exists (
> select 1 from datavalue
> where datavalue.parameter_id = parameter.id limit 1);
>
> Seq Scan on parameter (cost=0.00..20.50 rows=15 width=2648) (actual time=2895.972..21331.701 rows=15 loops=1)
> Filter: (SubPlan 1)
> Rows Removed by Filter: 6
> SubPlan 1
> -> Limit (cost=0.00..0.34 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=1015.790..1015.790 rows=1 loops=21)
> -> Seq Scan on datavalue (cost=0.00..502127.10 rows=1476987 width=0) (actual time=1015.786..1015.786 rows=1 loops=21)
> Filter: (parameter_id = parameter.id)
> Rows Removed by Filter: 7739355
> Planning time: 0.123 ms
> Execution time: 21331.736 ms
>
> What the deuce is going on here? Alternatively, whats a good way to do
> this?
>
> Any help/guidance appreciated!
>
>
>
> Some of the table description:
>
> \d datavalue
>
> id BIGINT DEFAULT nextval('datavalue_id_seq'::regclass) NOT NULL,
> value DOUBLE PRECISION NOT NULL,
> site_id INTEGER NOT NULL,
> parameter_id INTEGER NOT NULL,
> deployment_id INTEGER,
> instrument_id INTEGER,
> invalid BOOLEAN,
> Indexes:
> "datavalue_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (id)
> "datavalue_datetime_utc_site_id_parameter_id_instrument_id_key" UNIQUE CONSTRAINT, btree (datetime_utc, site_id, parameter_id, instrument_id)
> "ix_datavalue_instrument_id" btree (instrument_id)
> "ix_datavalue_parameter_id" btree (parameter_id)
> "ix_datavalue_site_id" btree (site_id)
> "tmp_idx" btree (site_id, datetime_utc)
> Foreign-key constraints:
> "datavalue_instrument_id_fkey" FOREIGN KEY (instrument_id) REFERENCES instrument(id) ON UPDATE CASCADE ON DELETE CASCADE
> "datavalue_parameter_id_fkey" FOREIGN KEY (parameter_id) REFERENCES parameter(id) ON UPDATE CASCADE ON DELETE CASCADE
> "datavalue_site_id_fkey" FOREIGN KEY (site_id) REFERENCES coastal.site(id) ON UPDATE CASCADE ON DELETE CASCADE
> "datavalue_statistic_type_id_fkey"
>
>
> ​I'm not great with the details but the short answer - aside from the fact
that you should consider increasing the statistics on these columns - is
that at a certain point querying the index and then subsequently checking
the table for visibility is more expensive than simply scanning and then
discarding ​the extra rows.

The fact that you could perform an INDEX ONLY scan in the first query makes
that cost go away since no subsequent heap check is required. In the
parameters query the planner thinks it needs 1.5 million of the rows and
will have to check each of them for visibility. It decided that scanning
the entire table was more efficient.

The LIMIT 1 in both queries should not be necessary. The planner is smart
enough to stop once it finds what it is looking for. In fact the LIMIT's
presence may be a contributing factor...but I cannot say for sure.

A better query seems like it would be:

WITH active_sites AS (
SELECT DISTINCT site_id FROM datavalues;
)
SELECT *
FROM sites
JOIN active_sites USING (site_id);

David J.