Not sure what other options we have other than an EAV approach since we allow users to define their own attribute types (attribute type is in contacts_contactfield, attribute value is in values_value). Would you expect modelling that with a JSON column to perform better?
On 23 February 2017 at 17:35, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
2017-02-23 15:02 GMT+01:00 Rowan Seymour <rowanseymour@xxxxxxxxx>:Hi Pavel. That suggestion gets me as far as LIMIT 694 with the fast plan then things get slow again. This is now what happens at LIMIT 695:Limit (cost=35945.78..50034.52 rows=695 width=88) (actual time=12852.580..12854.382 rows=695 loops=1)Buffers: shared hit=6 read=66689-> Merge Join (cost=35945.78..56176.80 rows=998 width=88) (actual time=12852.577..12854.271 rows=695 loops=1)Merge Cond: (contacts_contact.id = contacts_contactgroup_contacts.contact_id) Buffers: shared hit=6 read=66689-> Sort (cost=35944.53..35949.54 rows=2004 width=92) (actual time=12852.486..12852.577 rows=710 loops=1)Sort Key: contacts_contact.idSort Method: quicksort Memory: 34327kBBuffers: shared hit=6 read=66677-> Hash Join (cost=6816.19..35834.63 rows=2004 width=92) (actual time=721.293..12591.204 rows=200412 loops=1)Hash Cond: (contacts_contact.id = u0.contact_id)Buffers: shared hit=6 read=66677-> Seq Scan on contacts_contact (cost=0.00..25266.00 rows=1000000 width=88) (actual time=0.003..267.258 rows=1000000 loops=1)Buffers: shared hit=1 read=15265-> Hash (cost=6813.14..6813.14 rows=244 width=4) (actual time=714.373..714.373 rows=200412 loops=1)Buckets: 1024 Batches: 1 Memory Usage: 7046kBBuffers: shared hit=5 read=51412-> HashAggregate (cost=6810.70..6813.14 rows=244 width=4) (actual time=561.099..644.822 rows=200412 loops=1)Buffers: shared hit=5 read=51412-> Bitmap Heap Scan on values_value u0 (cost=60.98..6805.69 rows=2004 width=4) (actual time=75.410..364.976 rows=200412 loops=1)Recheck Cond: ((contact_field_id = 1) AND (upper(string_value) = 'F'::text))Buffers: shared hit=5 read=51412-> Bitmap Index Scan on values_value_field_string_value_contact (cost=0.00..60.47 rows=2004 width=0) (actual time=57.642..57.642 rows=200412 loops=1) Index Cond: ((contact_field_id = 1) AND (upper(string_value) = 'F'::text))Buffers: shared hit=5 read=765-> Index Only Scan Backward using contacts_contactgroup_contacts_contactgroup_id_0f909f73_uniq on contacts_contactgroup_contacts (cost=0.43..18967.29 rows=497992 width=4) (actual time=0.080..0.651 rows=1707 loops=1) Index Cond: (contactgroup_id = 1)Heap Fetches: 0Buffers: shared read=12Total runtime: 12863.938 msCan you explain a bit more about what you mean about " dependency between contact_field_id = 1 and upper(string_value) = 'F'::text"?look to related node in plan
-> Hash (cost=6813.14..6813.14 rows=244 width=4) (actual time=714.373..714.373 rows=200412 loops=1)Buckets: 1024 Batches: 1 Memory Usage: 7046kBBuffers: shared hit=5 read=51412-> HashAggregate (cost=6810.70..6813.14 rows=244 width=4) (actual time=561.099..644.822 rows=200412 loops=1)Buffers: shared hit=5 read=51412-> Bitmap Heap Scan on values_value u0 (cost=60.98..6805.69 rows=2004 width=4) (actual time=75.410..364.976 rows=200412 loops=1)Recheck Cond: ((contact_field_id = 1) AND (upper(string_value) = 'F'::text))Buffers: shared hit=5 read=51412There is lot of significant differences between estimation (2004) and reality (200412) - two orders - so the plan must be suboptimalI am looking to your schema - and it is variant on EAV table - this is antippatern and for more then small returned rows it should be slow.RegardsPavelBtw I created the index values_value_field_string_value_contact as CREATE INDEX values_value_field_string_value_contact ON values_value(contact_field_id, UPPER(string_value), contact_id DESC)WHERE contact_field_id IS NOT NULL;I'm not sure why it needs the contact_id column but without it the planner picks a slow approach for even smaller LIMIT values.On 23 February 2017 at 15:32, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:2017-02-23 14:11 GMT+01:00 Rowan Seymour <rowanseymour@xxxxxxxxx>:Hi guysI'm a bit stuck on a query that performs fantastically up to a certain limit value, after which the planner goes off in a completely different direction and performance gets dramatically worse. Am using Postgresql 9.3You can see all the relevant schemas at http://pastebin.com/PNEqw2id and in the test database there are 1,000,000 records in contacts_contact, and about half of those will match the subquery on values_value.The query in question is:SELECT "contacts_contact".* FROM "contacts_contact"INNER JOIN "contacts_contactgroup_contacts" ON ("contacts_contact"."id" = "contacts_contactgroup_contact s"."contact_id") WHERE ("contacts_contactgroup_contacts"."contactgroup_id" = 1 AND "contacts_contact"."id" IN (SELECT U0."contact_id" FROM "values_value" U0 WHERE (U0."contact_field_id" = 1 AND UPPER(U0."string_value"::text) = UPPER('F')))) ORDER BY "contacts_contact"."id" DESC LIMIT 222;With that limit of 222, it performs like:Limit (cost=3.09..13256.36 rows=222 width=88) (actual time=0.122..3.358 rows=222 loops=1)Buffers: shared hit=708 read=63-> Nested Loop (cost=3.09..59583.10 rows=998 width=88) (actual time=0.120..3.304 rows=222 loops=1)Buffers: shared hit=708 read=63-> Merge Semi Join (cost=2.65..51687.89 rows=2004 width=92) (actual time=0.103..1.968 rows=227 loops=1)Merge Cond: (contacts_contact.id = u0.contact_id)Buffers: shared hit=24 read=63-> Index Scan Backward using contacts_contact_pkey on contacts_contact (cost=0.42..41249.43 rows=1000000 width=88) (actual time=0.008..0.502 rows=1117 loops=1)Buffers: shared hit=22 read=2-> Index Scan using values_value_field_string_value_contact on values_value u0 (cost=0.43..7934.72 rows=2004 width=4) (actual time=0.086..0.857 rows=227 loops=1) Index Cond: ((contact_field_id = 1) AND (upper(string_value) = 'F'::text))Buffers: shared hit=2 read=61-> Index Only Scan using contacts_contactgroup_contacts_contactgroup_id_0f909f73_uniq on contacts_contactgroup_contacts (cost=0.43..3.93 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.005..0.005 rows=1 loops=227) Index Cond: ((contactgroup_id = 1) AND (contact_id = contacts_contact.id))Heap Fetches: 0Buffers: shared hit=684Total runtime: 3.488 msBut if increase the limit to 223 then it performs like:Limit (cost=8785.68..13306.24 rows=223 width=88) (actual time=2685.830..2686.534 rows=223 loops=1)Buffers: shared hit=767648 read=86530-> Merge Join (cost=8785.68..29016.70 rows=998 width=88) (actual time=2685.828..2686.461 rows=223 loops=1)Merge Cond: (contacts_contact.id = contacts_contactgroup_contacts.contact_id) Buffers: shared hit=767648 read=86530-> Sort (cost=8784.44..8789.45 rows=2004 width=92) (actual time=2685.742..2685.804 rows=228 loops=1)Sort Key: contacts_contact.idSort Method: quicksort Memory: 34327kBBuffers: shared hit=767648 read=86524-> Nested Loop (cost=6811.12..8674.53 rows=2004 width=92) (actual time=646.573..2417.291 rows=200412 loops=1)There is pretty bad estimation probably due dependency between contact_field_id = 1 and upper(string_value) = 'F'::textThe most simple solution is disable nested loop - set enable_nestloop to offRegardsPavelBuffers: shared hit=767648 read=86524-> HashAggregate (cost=6810.70..6813.14 rows=244 width=4) (actual time=646.532..766.200 rows=200412 loops=1)Buffers: shared read=51417-> Bitmap Heap Scan on values_value u0 (cost=60.98..6805.69 rows=2004 width=4) (actual time=92.016..433.709 rows=200412 loops=1)Recheck Cond: ((contact_field_id = 1) AND (upper(string_value) = 'F'::text))Buffers: shared read=51417-> Bitmap Index Scan on values_value_field_string_value_contact (cost=0.00..60.47 rows=2004 width=0) (actual time=70.647..70.647 rows=200412 loops=1) Index Cond: ((contact_field_id = 1) AND (upper(string_value) = 'F'::text))Buffers: shared read=770-> Index Scan using contacts_contact_pkey on contacts_contact (cost=0.42..7.62 rows=1 width=88) (actual time=0.007..0.007 rows=1 loops=200412)Index Cond: (id = u0.contact_id)Buffers: shared hit=767648 read=35107-> Index Only Scan Backward using contacts_contactgroup_contacts_contactgroup_id_0f909f73_uniq on contacts_contactgroup_contacts (cost=0.43..18967.29 rows=497992 width=4) (actual time=0.073..0.273 rows=550 loops=1) Index Cond: (contactgroup_id = 1)Heap Fetches: 0Buffers: shared read=6Total runtime: 2695.301 msI've tried running ANALYZE but that actually reduced the limit at which things get worse. Any insight into the reasoning of the query planner would be much appreciated.Thanks--Rowan Seymour | +260 964153686 | @rowanseymour
--Rowan Seymour | +260 964153686 | @rowanseymour
Rowan Seymour | +260 964153686 | @rowanseymour
