From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kenny Bachman <kenny(dot)bachman17(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: postgresql-14 slow query |
Date: | 2022-04-16 04:37:10 |
Message-ID: | CAMkU=1zL5+zQzzYL3j+xHBoGAw0JvmAoz_5c7+JZszybzAug5Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 4:59 PM Kenny Bachman <kenny(dot)bachman17(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> Hello Team,
>
> How can I tune this query? It got even slower when I created the index for
> (state_id, order_id desc). The following explain analyze output is
> without an index. It takes 13 seconds if I create that index. Could you
> help me?
>
> Thank you so much for your help.
>
> SELECT DISTINCT ON (order_history.order_id) order_id,
> order_history.creation_date AS c_date
> FROM work.order_history WHERE (order_history.state_id = ANY (ARRAY[30, 51,
> 63, 136, 195, 233, 348])) AND order_history.is_false = 0
> ORDER BY order_history.order_id DESC;
>
This query doesn't make much sense to me. You are selecting an arbitrary
creation_date for each order_id, which seems like a weird thing to do on
purpose. Is your ORDER BY supposed to list another column in it to break
the ties?
I wonder how much benefit you are actually getting from the parallel
workers. If you lower max_parallel_workers_per_gather, does the plan take
proportionally longer?
You should turn on track_io_timing, then repeat the query with EXPLAIN
(ANALYZE, BUFFERS).
Cheers,
Jeff
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Avinash Vallarapu | 2022-04-16 05:21:52 | Re: postgresql-14 slow query |
Previous Message | Bhupendra Babu | 2022-04-16 04:14:25 | Re: postgresql-14 slow query |