Hi Mechel,
I added the index as you suggested and the planner going through the bitmap index scan,heap and the new planner is,
Mem config:
Aurora PostgreSQL 11.7 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (GCC) 4.9.3, 64-bit
vCPU = 64
RAM = 512
show shared_buffers = 355 GB
show work_mem = 214 MB
show maintenance_work_mem = 8363MB
show effective_cache_size = 355 GB
Thanks,
Rj
On Friday, September 4, 2020, 02:55:50 PM PDT, Michael Lewis <mlewis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Subquery Scan on rec (cost=1628601.89..1676580.92 rows=7381 width=41) (actual time=22171.986..23549.079 rows=1236042 loops=1)"
" Filter: (rec.mpos = 1)"
" Rows Removed by Filter: 228737"
" Buffers: shared hit=45 read=1166951"
" I/O Timings: read=29.530"
" -> WindowAgg (cost=1628601.89..1658127.45 rows=1476278 width=49) (actual time=22171.983..23379.219 rows=1464779 loops=1)"
" Buffers: shared hit=45 read=1166951"
" I/O Timings: read=29.530"
" -> Sort (cost=1628601.89..1632292.58 rows=1476278 width=41) (actual time=22171.963..22484.044 rows=1464779 loops=1)"
" Sort Key: receiving_item_delivered_received.serial_no, receiving_item_delivered_received.eventtime DESC"
" Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 163589kB"
" Buffers: shared hit=45 read=1166951"
" I/O Timings: read=29.530"
" -> Gather (cost=1000.00..1477331.13 rows=1476278 width=41) (actual time=1.296..10428.060 rows=1464779 loops=1)"
" Workers Planned: 2"
" Workers Launched: 2"
" Buffers: shared hit=39 read=1166951"
" I/O Timings: read=29.530"
" -> Parallel Seq Scan on receiving_item_delivered_received (cost=0.00..1328703.33 rows=615116 width=41) (actual time=1.262..10150.325 rows=488260 loops=3)"
" Filter: (((COALESCE(serial_no, ''::character varying))::text <> ''::text) AND ((eventtype)::text = 'LineItemdetailsReceived'::text) AND ((replenishmenttype)::text = 'DC2SWARRANTY'::text))"
" Rows Removed by Filter: 6906258"
" Buffers: shared hit=39 read=1166951"
" I/O Timings: read=29.530"
"Planning Time: 0.375 ms"
"Execution Time: 23617.348 ms"
That is doing a lot of reading from disk. What do you have shared_buffers set to? I'd expect better cache hits unless it is quite low or this is a query that differs greatly from the typical work.
That is doing a lot of reading from disk. What do you have shared_buffers set to? I'd expect better cache hits unless it is quite low or this is a query that differs greatly from the typical work.
Also, did you try adding the index I suggested? That lowest node has 488k rows coming out of it after throwing away 6.9 million. I would expect an index on only eventtype, replenishmenttype to be quite helpful. I don't assume you have tons of rows where serial_no is null.
