Postgresql always uses widening conversion, so it can't use index. There are next options to fix:
1) Make all types the same
2) If you are using some narrow type for big_table (say, int2) to save space, you can force narrowing conversion, e.g. "b.key1=ds.key1::int2". Note that if ds.key1 has any values that don't fit into int2, you will have problems. And of course, use your type used instead of int2.
3) Create an index on (key1::numeric),(key2::numeric) . This is last options this this index will be very specific to the query (or similar ones).
Best regards, Vitalii Tymchyshyn
2012/10/30 Vincenzo Melandri <vmelandri@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi all
I have a problem with a data import procedure that involve the following query:
select a,b,c,d
from big_table b
join data_sequences_table ds
on b.key1 = ds.key1 and b.key2 = ds.key2
where ds.import_id=xxxxxxxxxx
The "big table" has something like 10.000.000 records ore more
(depending on the table, there are more than one of them).
The data are uploaded in 20k record blocks, and the keys are written
on "data_sequences_table". The keys are composite (key1,key2), and
every 5-10 sequences (depending on the size of the upload) the
data_sequences_table records are deleted.
I have indexes on both the key on the big table and the import_id on
the sequence table.
the query plan evualuate like this:
Merge Join (cost=2604203.98..2774528.51 rows=129904 width=20)
Merge Cond: (((( big_table.key1)::numeric) =
data_sequences_table.key1) AND ((( big_table.key2)::numeric) =
data_sequences_table.key2))
-> Sort (cost=2602495.47..2635975.81 rows=13392135 width=20)
Sort Key: ((big_table.key1)::numeric), ((big_table.key2)::numeric)
-> Seq Scan on big_table (cost=0.00..467919.35 rows=13392135 width=20)
-> Sort (cost=1708.51..1709.48 rows=388 width=32)
Sort Key: data_sequences_table.key1, data_sequences_table.key2
-> Seq Scan on data_sequences_table (cost=0.00..1691.83
rows=388 width=32)
Filter: (import_id = 1351592072::numeric)
It executes in something like 80 seconds. The import procedure has
more than 500 occurrences of this situation. :(
Why is the big table evaluated with a seq scan? The result is 0 to
20.000 records (the query returns the records that already exists and
should be updated, not inserted).. Can I do something to speed this
up?
--
Vincenzo.
Imola Informatica
Ai sensi del D.Lgs. 196/2003 si precisa che le informazioni contenute
in questo messaggio sono riservate ed a uso esclusivo del
destinatario.
Pursuant to Legislative Decree No. 196/2003, you are hereby informed
that this message contains confidential information intended only for
the use of the addressee.
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Best regards,
Vitalii Tymchyshyn
