Re: Performance regression when adding LIMIT 1 to a query

On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 at 14:45, Costa Alexoglou <costa(at)dbtune(dot)com> wrote:
> ...
> with a plan:
> ```
> Gather Merge (cost=115584.47..118515.35 rows=25120 width=824) (actual time=46.004..74.267 rows=29653 loops=1)
> Workers Planned: 2
> Workers Launched: 2
> -> Sort (cost=114584.45..114615.85 rows=12560 width=824) (actual time=41.200..47.322 rows=9884 loops=3)
> Sort Key: id
> Sort Method: external merge Disk: 16360kB
> Worker 0: Sort Method: external merge Disk: 15552kB
> Worker 1: Sort Method: external merge Disk: 14536kB
> -> Parallel Bitmap Heap Scan on databases_metrics (cost=990.77..109175.83 rows=12560 width=824) (actual time=3.326..14.295 rows=9884 loops=3)
> Recheck Cond: ((db_instance_id = 'c4c97a60-b88e-4cd3-a2f1-random-uuid'::uuid) AND (created_at >= '2023-03-15 10:00:00+00'::timestamp with time zone) AND (created_at <= '2025-04-03 10:00:00+00'::timestamp with time zone))"},
> Filter: ((metrics -> 'perf_average_query_runtime'::text) IS NOT NULL)
> Rows Removed by Filter: 68
> Heap Blocks: exact=4272
> -> Bitmap Index Scan on idx_databases_metrics_instance_date_custom_created_debugging (cost=0.00..983.24 rows=30294 width=0) (actual time=3.786.786 rows=29856 loops=1)"},
> Index Cond: ((db_instance_id = 'c4c97a60-b88e-4cd3-a2f1-random-uuid'::uuid) AND (created_at >= '2023-03-15 10:00:00+00'::timestamp with time zone) AND (created_at <= '2025-04-03 10:00:00+00'::timestamp with time zone))"},
> ...
> With a plan:
> ```
> Limit (cost=0.43..229.66 rows=1 width=824) (actual time=7538.004..7538.005 rows=1 loops=1)
> -> Index Scan using databases_metrics_pkey on databases_metrics (cost=0.43..6909156.38 rows=30142 width=824) (actual time=7538.002..7538.003 rows=1 loops=1)
> Filter: ((created_at >= '2023-03-15 10:00:00+00'::timestamp with time zone) AND (created_at <= '2025-04-03 10:00:00+00'::timestamp with time zone) A((metrics -> 'perf_average_query_runtime'::text) IS NOT NULL) AND (db_instance_id = 'c4c97a60-b88e-4cd3-a2f1-random-uuid'::uuid))"},
> Rows Removed by Filter: 10244795
> Planning Time: 0.128 ms
> Execution Time: 7538.032 ms
> ```

On your second query Postgres uses the index "databases_metrics_pkey".
I assume that it is built using the "id" column. It could be very fast
with the statement "ORDER BY ... LIMIT", but due to the additional
filter Postgres firstly has to remove 10mln rows, which doesn't
satisfy the filter, only to reach one single row.

On the first query Postgres has to read and sort only 29k rows using
the index "idx_databases_metrics_instance_date_custom_created_debugging",
which is better suited for the used filter if it includes the columns
used in the filter.

I'm not sure why Postgres chooses the index "databases_metrics_pkey".
Maybe you have outdated statistics. Did you try to run VACUUM ANALYZE
on the table?

--
Kind regards,
Artur