After setting seq_page_cost to 3 the execution plan became good, without SeqScan, but it seems strange to set seq_page_cost almost equal to random_page_cost, therefore i've set seq_page_cost back to defaults, increased the statistics for "sub_id" in "mba_test.subscr_param" to 1000. That gave me the value of estimated number of rows for subscr_param_pkey closer to the real value (est.64, real 30) which affected the execution plan in the right way.
Thursday, June 29, 2017 7:21 PM +03:00 from Mikhail <bemewe@xxxxxxx>:
Hi guys,
I'm loss. I'm running:
=# select version();
version
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PostgreSQL 9.6.2 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (GCC) 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-11), 64-bit
=# show work_mem;
work_mem
----------
27MB
=# show shared_buffers;
shared_buffers
----------------
3520MB
Having the tables:
CREATE TABLE mba_test.subscr_param(
sub_id integer NOT NULL,
res_id integer NOT NULL,
rel_status integer,
status integer,
and so on.. total 35 columns
CREATE TABLE mba_test.subscr (
sub_id integer NOT NULL,
sub_name character varying(80),
status integer NOT NULL,
acc_id integer,
and so on.. total 59 columns
alter table mba_test.subscr_param add primary key (sub_id, res_id);
alter table mba_test.subscr add primary key (sub_id);
create index idx_subscr_acc_id on mba_test.subscr(acc_id);
Tables and indexes has the following sizes / statistics:
=# select relname, relpages, reltuples, pg_size_pretty(pg_relation_size(oid))
from pg_class
where relname in ('subscr_param', 'subscr', 'idx_subscr_acc_id', 'subscr_pkey', 'subscr_param_pkey');
relname | relpages | reltuples | pg_size_pretty
-----------------------+----------+-------------+----------------
subscr | 24086 | 825305 | 188 MB
subscr_param_pkey | 115968 | 4.22936e+07 | 906 MB
subscr_param | 1446158 | 4.22936e+07 | 11 GB
subscr_pkey | 2265 | 825305 | 18 MB
idx_subscr_acc_id | 2265 | 825305 | 18 MB
And "subscr" data distribution is:
=# select acc_id, count(*) from mba_test.subscr group by acc_id order by count(*) desc limit 5;
acc_id | count
---------+-------
1089212 | 5232
1000154 | 2884
1587496 | 1896
1409682 | 1746
1249568 | 1149
=# select count(*) from mba_test.subscr;
count
--------
825305
=# select count(*) from mba_test.subscr_param;
count
----------
42293572
Now, i take the second acc_id (1000154) and run the query below twice (to have cached everything i can). The second execution gives the following:
=# explain (analyze, buffers) SELECT "SP".res_id, "SP".sub_id
FROM mba_test.subscr_param "SP"
JOIN mba_test.subscr "S" ON "SP".sub_id = "S".sub_id
WHERE "S".acc_id = 1000154;
QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hash Join (cost=7841.72..2036917.93 rows=138159 width=8) (actual time=39.501..10086.843 rows=86933 loops=1)
Hash Cond: ("SP".sub_id = "S".sub_id)
Buffers: shared hit=178674 read=1269448
-> Seq Scan on subscr_param "SP" (cost=0.00..1869093.72 rows=42293572 width=8) (actual time=0.024..6294.100 rows=42293572 loops=1)
Buffers: shared hit=176710 read=1269448
-> Hash (cost=7808.02..7808.02 rows=2696 width=4) (actual time=3.161..3.161 rows=2884 loops=1)
Buckets: 4096 Batches: 1 Memory Usage: 134kB
Buffers: shared hit=1964
-> Bitmap Heap Scan on subscr "S" (cost=53.32..7808.02 rows=2696 width=4) (actual time=0.471..2.802 rows=2884 loops=1)
Recheck Cond: (acc_id = 1000154)
Heap Blocks: exact=1953
Buffers: shared hit=1964
-> Bitmap Index Scan on idx_subscr_acc_id (cost=0.00..52.64 rows=2696 width=0) (actual time=0.273..0.273 rows=2884 loops=1)
Index Cond: (acc_id = 1000154)
Buffers: shared hit=11
Planning time: 0.155 ms
Execution time: 10091.265 ms
Seems strange to decide to seq scan the table with 42 mln rows and size 11GB when having the index (actually, primary key) containing both columns (sub_id and res_id) which is less than 1GB.
Now, i've explicitly turned the sec scans off and got perfect execution plan:
=# set enable_seqscan = off;
=# explain (analyze, buffers) SELECT "SP".res_id, "SP".sub_id
FROM mba_test.subscr_param "SP"
JOIN mba_test.subscr "S" ON "SP".sub_id = "S".sub_id
WHERE "S".acc_id = 1000154;
QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nested Loop (cost=53.88..4954693.91 rows=138159 width=8) (actual time=0.471..62.315 rows=86933 loops=1)
Buffers: shared hit=50837
-> Bitmap Heap Scan on subscr "S" (cost=53.32..7808.02 rows=2696 width=4) (actual time=0.459..3.250 rows=2884 loops=1)
Recheck Cond: (acc_id = 1000154)
Heap Blocks: exact=1953
Buffers: shared hit=1964
-> Bitmap Index Scan on idx_subscr_acc_id (cost=0.00..52.64 rows=2696 width=0) (actual time=0.258..0.258 rows=2884 loops=1)
Index Cond: (acc_id = 1000154)
Buffers: shared hit=11
-> Index Only Scan using subscr_param_pkey on subscr_param "SP" (cost=0.56..1825.67 rows=923 width=8) (actual time=0.004..0.017 rows=30 loops=2884)
Index Cond: (sub_id = "S".sub_id)
Heap Fetches: 86933
Buffers: shared hit=48873
Planning time: 0.169 ms
Execution time: 66.644 ms
67 milliseconds vs 10 seconds! While the cost is two times bigger (4954693 vs 2036917).
My thoughts are: taking into account that the estimated number of rows to fetch on bitmap heap scan is approx. right (est. 2696 - real 2884), the problem is with index scan cost estimation, which results to 4920200 (2696*1825). And the miss in cost estimation is because of the estimation of the number of rows to return (est. 923 - real 30).
And my question:
1. am i right in my hypothesis?
2. is there a way to affect the cost evaluation in my case to help postgresql choose the right execution plan?
3. is there a way to fix this query and not to break the execution of other queries?
ps: running "analyze" on both tables doesn't affect the result
pps: all "cost" parameters are in their default values: cpu_index_tuple_cost, cpu_operator_cost, cpu_tuple_cost, random_page_cost, seq_page_cost.
Thanks, Mikhail
