Hi Pavel,
Thanks for sharing that information. I was not aware that the parallel query functionality was not yet fully implemented.
Thanks,
Ryan
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:17 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi2018-04-16 22:42 GMT+02:00 Hackety Man <hacketyman@xxxxxxxxx>:A description of what you are trying to achieve and what results you expect.:My end goal was to test the execution time difference between using an IF(SELECT COUNT(*)...) and an IF EXISTS() when no indexes were used and when a string match was not found. My expectation was that my 2 functions would behave fairly similarly, but they most certainly did not. Here are the table, functions, test queries, and test query results I received, as well as comments as I present the pieces and talk about the results from my perspective.This is the table and data that I used for my tests. A table with 1 million sequenced records. No indexing on any columns. I ran ANALYZE on this table and a VACUUM on the entire database, just to be sure.CREATE TABLE zz_noidx1 AS SELECT generate_series(0, 999999) AS int_distinct, 'Test'::text || generate_series(0, 999999)::text AS text_distinct;These are the 2 functions that I ran my final tests with. My goal was to determine which function would perform the fastest and my expectation was that they would still be somewhat close in execution time comparison.--Test Function #1CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION zz_spx_ifcount_noidx(p_findme text)
RETURNS text
LANGUAGE 'plpgsql'
STABLE
AS $$
BEGIN
IF (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM zz_noidx1 WHERE LOWER(zz_noidx1.text_distinct) = LOWER(p_findme)) > 0 THEN
RETURN 'Found';
ELSE
RETURN 'Not Found';
END IF;
END;$$;--Test Function #2
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION zz_spx_ifexists_noidx(p_findme text)
RETURNS text
LANGUAGE 'plpgsql'
STABLE
AS $$
BEGIN
IF EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM zz_noidx1 WHERE LOWER(zz_noidx1.text_distinct) = LOWER(p_findme)) THEN
RETURN 'Found';
ELSE
RETURN 'Not Found';
END IF;
END;$$;The first thing I did was to run some baseline tests using the basic queries inside of the IF() checks found in each of the functions to see how the query planner handled them. I ran the following two queries.EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) SELECT COUNT(*) FROM zz_noidx1 WHERE LOWER(text_distinct) = LOWER('Test5000001');
EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) SELECT 1 FROM zz_noidx1 WHERE LOWER(text_distinct) = LOWER('Test5000001');The execution time results and query plans for these two were very similar, as expected. In the results I can see that 2 workers were employed for each query plan.--Results for the SELECT COUNT(*) query.
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ----------------
Finalize Aggregate (cost=12661.42..12661.43 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=172.105..172.105 rows=1 loops=1)
Buffers: shared read=1912
-> Gather (cost=12661.21..12661.42 rows=2 width=8) (actual time=172.020..172.099 rows=3 loops=1)
Workers Planned: 2
Workers Launched: 2
Buffers: shared read=1912
-> Partial Aggregate (cost=11661.21..11661.22 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=155.123..155.123 rows=1 loops=3)
Buffers: shared read=5406
-> Parallel Seq Scan on zz_noidx1 (cost=0.00..11656.00 rows=2083 width=0) (actual time=155.103..155.103 rows=0 loops=3)
Filter: (lower(text_distinct) = 'test5000001'::text)
Rows Removed by Filter: 333333
Buffers: shared read=5406
Planning time: 0.718 ms
Execution time: 187.601 ms--Results for the SELECT 1 query.
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ----
Gather (cost=1000.00..13156.00 rows=5000 width=4) (actual time=175.682..175.682 rows=0 loops=1)
Workers Planned: 2
Workers Launched: 2
Buffers: shared read=2021
-> Parallel Seq Scan on zz_noidx1 (cost=0.00..11656.00 rows=2083 width=4) (actual time=159.769..159.769 rows=0 loops=3)
Filter: (lower(text_distinct) = 'test5000001'::text)
Rows Removed by Filter: 333333
Buffers: shared read=5406
Planning time: 0.874 ms
Execution time: 192.045 msAfter running these baseline tests and viewing the fairly similar results, right or wrong, I expected my queries that tested the functions to behave similarly. I started with the following query...EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) SELECT * FROM zz_spx_ifcount_noidx('Test5000001'); and I got the following "auto_explain" results...2018-04-16 14:57:22.624 EDT [17812] LOG: duration: 155.239 ms plan:
Query Text: SELECT (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM zz_noidx1 WHERE LOWER(zz_noidx1.text_distinct) = LOWER(p_findme)) > 0
Partial Aggregate (cost=11661.21..11661.22 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=155.230..155.230 rows=1 loops=1)
Buffers: shared read=1682
-> Parallel Seq Scan on zz_noidx1 (cost=0.00..11656.00 rows=2083 width=0) (actual time=155.222..155.222 rows=0 loops=1)
Filter: (lower(text_distinct) = 'test5000001'::text)
Rows Removed by Filter: 311170
Buffers: shared read=1682
2018-04-16 14:57:22.624 EDT [9096] LOG: duration: 154.603 ms plan:
Query Text: SELECT (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM zz_noidx1 WHERE LOWER(zz_noidx1.text_distinct) = LOWER(p_findme)) > 0
Partial Aggregate (cost=11661.21..11661.22 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=154.576..154.576 rows=1 loops=1)
Buffers: shared read=1682
-> Parallel Seq Scan on zz_noidx1 (cost=0.00..11656.00 rows=2083 width=0) (actual time=154.570..154.570 rows=0 loops=1)
Filter: (lower(text_distinct) = 'test5000001'::text)
Rows Removed by Filter: 311061
Buffers: shared read=1682
2018-04-16 14:57:22.642 EDT [15132] LOG: duration: 197.260 ms plan:
Query Text: SELECT (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM zz_noidx1 WHERE LOWER(zz_noidx1.text_distinct) = LOWER(p_findme)) > 0
Result (cost=12661.43..12661.45 rows=1 width=1) (actual time=179.561..179.561 rows=1 loops=1)
Buffers: shared read=2042
InitPlan 1 (returns $1)
-> Finalize Aggregate (cost=12661.42..12661.43 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=179.559..179.559 rows=1 loops=1)
Buffers: shared read=2042
-> Gather (cost=12661.21..12661.42 rows=2 width=8) (actual time=179.529..179.556 rows=3 loops=1)
Workers Planned: 2
Workers Launched: 2
Buffers: shared read=2042
-> Partial Aggregate (cost=11661.21..11661.22 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=162.831..162.831 rows=1 loops=3)
Buffers: shared read=5406
-> Parallel Seq Scan on zz_noidx1 (cost=0.00..11656.00 rows=2083 width=0) (actual time=162.824..162.824 rows=0 loops=3)
Filter: (lower(text_distinct) = 'test5000001'::text)
Rows Removed by Filter: 333333
Buffers: shared read=5406
2018-04-16 14:57:22.642 EDT [15132] CONTEXT: SQL statement "SELECT (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM zz_noidx1 WHERE LOWER(zz_noidx1.text_distinct) = LOWER(p_findme)) > 0"
PL/pgSQL function zz_spx_ifcount_noidx(text) line 4 at IF
2018-04-16 14:57:22.642 EDT [15132] LOG: duration: 199.371 ms plan:
Query Text: explain (analyze, buffers) select * from zz_spx_ifcount_noidx('Test5000001')
Function Scan on zz_spx_ifcount_noidx (cost=0.25..0.26 rows=1 width=32) (actual time=199.370..199.370 rows=1 loops=1)
Buffers: shared hit=218 read=5446Here I could see that the 2 workers were getting employed again, which is great. Just what I expected. And the execution time was in the same ballpark as my first baseline test using just the query found inside of the IF() check. 199 milliseonds. Okay.I moved on to test the other function with the following query...EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) SELECT * FROM zz_spx_ifcount_noidx('Test5000001'); and I got the following "auto_explain" results...2018-04-16 14:58:34.134 EDT [12616] LOG: duration: 426.279 ms plan:
Query Text: SELECT EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM zz_noidx1 WHERE LOWER(zz_noidx1.text_distinct) = LOWER(p_findme))
Result (cost=4.08..4.09 rows=1 width=1) (actual time=426.274..426.274 rows=1 loops=1)
Buffers: shared read=5406
InitPlan 1 (returns $0)
-> Seq Scan on zz_noidx1 (cost=0.00..20406.00 rows=5000 width=0) (actual time=426.273..426.273 rows=0 loops=1)
Filter: (lower(text_distinct) = 'test5000001'::text)
Rows Removed by Filter: 1000000
Buffers: shared read=5406
2018-04-16 14:58:34.134 EDT [12616] CONTEXT: SQL statement "SELECT EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM zz_noidx1 WHERE LOWER(zz_noidx1.text_distinct) = LOWER(p_findme))"
PL/pgSQL function zz_spx_ifexists_noidx(text) line 4 at IF
2018-04-16 14:58:34.134 EDT [12616] LOG: duration: 428.077 ms plan:
Query Text: explain (analyze, buffers) select * from zz_spx_ifexists_noidx('Test5000001')
Function Scan on zz_spx_ifexists_noidx (cost=0.25..0.26 rows=1 width=32) (actual time=428.076..428.076 rows=1 loops=1)
Buffers: shared hit=30 read=5438Definitely not the execution time, or query plan, results I was expecting. As we can see, no workers were employed here and my guess was that this was the reason or the large execution time difference between these 2 tests? 199 milliseconds versus 428 milliseconds, which is a big difference. Why are workers not being employed here like they were when I tested the query found inside of the IF() check in a standalone manner? But then I ran another test and the results made even less sense to me.When I ran the above query the first 5 times after starting my Postgres service, I got the same results each time (around 428 milliseconds), but when running the query 6 or more times, the execution time jumps up to almost double that. Here are the "auto_explain" results running this query a 6th time...--"auto_explain" results after running the same query 6 or more times.
2018-04-16 15:01:51.635 EDT [12616] LOG: duration: 761.847 ms plan:
Query Text: SELECT EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM zz_noidx1 WHERE LOWER(zz_noidx1.text_distinct) = LOWER(p_findme))
Result (cost=4.58..4.59 rows=1 width=1) (actual time=761.843..761.843 rows=1 loops=1)
Buffers: shared hit=160 read=5246
InitPlan 1 (returns $0)
-> Seq Scan on zz_noidx1 (cost=0.00..22906.00 rows=5000 width=0) (actual time=761.841..761.841 rows=0 loops=1)
Filter: (lower(text_distinct) = lower($1))
Rows Removed by Filter: 1000000
Buffers: shared hit=160 read=5246
2018-04-16 15:01:51.635 EDT [12616] CONTEXT: SQL statement "SELECT EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM zz_noidx1 WHERE LOWER(zz_noidx1.text_distinct) = LOWER(p_findme))"
PL/pgSQL function zz_spx_ifexists_noidx(text) line 4 at IF
2018-04-16 15:01:51.635 EDT [12616] LOG: duration: 762.156 ms plan:
Query Text: explain (analyze, buffers) select * from zz_spx_ifexists_noidx('Test5000001')
Function Scan on zz_spx_ifexists_noidx (cost=0.25..0.26 rows=1 width=32) (actual time=762.154..762.155 rows=1 loops=1)
Buffers: shared hit=160 read=5246As you can see, the execution time jumps up to about 762 milliseonds. I can see in the sequence scan node that the LOWER() function shows up on the right side of the equal operator, whereas in the first 5 runs of this test query the plan did not show this. Why is this?I tried increasing the "work_mem" setting to 1GB to see if this made any difference, but the results were the same.So those were the tests that I performed and the results I received, which left me with many questions. If anyone is able to help me understand this behavior, I'd greatly appreciate it. This is my first post to the email list, so I hope I did a good enough job providing all the information needed.Thanks!
RyanPostgreSQL version number you are running:PostgreSQL 10.2, compiled by Visual C++ build 1800, 64-bitHow you installed PostgreSQL:Using the Enterprise DB installer.I have also installed Enterprise DB's Postgres Enterprise Manager (PEM) 7.2.0 software and Enterprise DB's SQL Profiler PG10-7.2.0 software. The PEM Agent service that gets installed is currently turned off.Changes made to the settings in the postgresql.conf file: see Server Configuration for a quick way to list them all.name|current_setting |source
-----------------------------------|------------------------ ---------------|-------------- -------
application_name|DBeaver 5.0.3 - Main |session
auto_explain.log_analyze|on |configuration file
auto_explain.log_buffers|on |configuration file
auto_explain.log_min_duration|0 |configuration file
auto_explain.log_nested_statements |on |configuration file
auto_explain.log_triggers|on |configuration file
client_encoding|UTF8 |client
DateStyle|ISO, MDY |client
default_text_search_config|pg_catalog.english |configuration file
dynamic_shared_memory_type|windows |configuration file
extra_float_digits|3 |session
lc_messages|English_United States.1252 |configuration file
lc_monetary|English_United States.1252 |configuration file
lc_numeric|English_United States.1252 |configuration file
lc_time|English_United States.1252 |configuration file
listen_addresses|* |configuration file
log_destination|stderr |configuration file
log_timezone|US/Eastern |configuration file
logging_collector|on |configuration file
max_connections|100 |configuration file
max_stack_depth|2MB |environment variable
port|5432 |configuration file
shared_buffers|128MB |configuration file
shared_preload_libraries|$libdir/sql-profiler.dll, auto_explain |configuration file
ssl|on |configuration file
ssl_ca_file|root.crt |configuration file
ssl_cert_file|server.crt |configuration file
ssl_crl_file|root.crl |configuration file
ssl_key_file|server.key |configuration file
TimeZone|America/New_York |client Operating system and version:Windows 10 Pro 64-bit, Version 1709 (Build 16299.309)Hardware:Processor - Intel Core i7-7820HQ @ 2.90GHz
RAM - 16GB
RAID? - No
Hard Drive - Samsung 512 GB SSD M.2 PCIe NVMe Opal2What program you're using to connect to PostgreSQL:DBeaver Community Edition v5.0.3Is there anything relevant or unusual in the PostgreSQL server logs?:Not that I noticed.For questions about any kind of error:N/AWhat you were doing when the error happened / how to cause the error:N/AThe EXACT TEXT of the error message you're getting, if there is one: (Copy and paste the message to the email, do not send a screenshot)N/AA support of parallel query execution is not complete - it doesn't work in PostgreSQL 11 too. So although EXISTS variant can be faster (but can be - the worst case of EXISTS is same like COUNT), then due disabled parallel execution the COUNT(*) is faster now. It is unfortunate, because I believe so this issue will be fixed in few years.RegardsPavel
