Ah. I didn't realize that. If SkipScan was chosen, you'd actually see it as one of the execution nodes. I also realize I was making a few assumptions about your data, are channels shared among stations, or are all channels unique (like an ID) per station? That would impact the index and approach.
Ok, that may be a good point: “channel” is currently a varchar column, containing something like ‘BHZ’, ‘EHZ’, ‘BHE’ etc. There are only a handful of possible channels that I am currently aware of, which are shared among stations - most stations have a ‘BHZ’ channel, for example. That would be fairly simple to normalize out if that would help.
Something like:
station | channel
----------|-----------
1 1 1 2 2 3 2 4
or: station | channel
----------|----------- 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2
Cool. I'd be interested to see the explain on it if you ever try it again. On that cardinality, I'd expect it to be really fast, so I'm interested to see if the (SkipScan) nodes were actually used.
With timescaledb extension installed, the explain is what I posted in the original message ( https://explain.depesz.com/s/mtxB#html). Without timescaledb installed, the explain looks the same, except it takes twice as long to run.
Unless I missed something in your message, i.e. some sort of tweak to the query to get it to use the timescaledb features?
--- Israel Brewster
Software Engineer
Alaska Volcano Observatory
Geophysical Institute - UAF
2156 Koyukuk Drive
Fairbanks AK 99775-7320 Work: 907-474-5172
cell: 907-328-9145
[Timescale Dev Advocate here]
I realize this might not be the most accepted answer (could be interpreted as trying to "sell" something), but feels like an opportunity to talk about DISTINCT queries and opportunities. Because you have that index, Timescale 2.3 added a "Skip Scan" query planner node that works on regular BTree indexes (it doesn't have to be time-series/TimescaleDB Hypertable data at all). In this case, your distinct query would likely run in a few milliseconds based on the counts you mention (170 stations, 3 channels per station), and then the outer aggregation would do the GROUP BY. So, you **could** add the TimescaleDB extension to your database (or a copy of) and give it a try. You don't actually need to use any TimescaleDB features otherwise.
I had actually already done that, as I was considering, in spite of past negative experiences with timescaledb, experimenting with it on this DB to see if it worked any better with this data. Out of curiosity, I tried removing the timescaledb extension, whereupon the query in question took roughly twice as long. So you are right that installing timescaledb speeds things up, even when not using any timescaledb specific functions. So that was a good call. Thanks!
--- Israel Brewster
Software Engineer
Alaska Volcano Observatory
Geophysical Institute - UAF
2156 Koyukuk Drive
Fairbanks AK 99775-7320 Work: 907-474-5172
cell: 907-328-9145
Anyway, it might be worth a shot. HTH
Ryan B In the future, please share the plan returned by explain analyze, and some data about how many rows in the involved tables,
I believe we consider it acceptable to link to an explain viewer, which is what the OP did. Reading explain output in email has its own challenges, and I'd rather have the website than a text attachment.
How does the below work? It should do a very simple index scan only, then aggregate the relative few rows after the fact.
select station, array_agg(distinct(channel)) as channels FROM( SELECT station,channel FROM data GROUP BY station,channel ) AS sub group by station;
Yeah, am pondering this too, though seems like the queries should be identical so the plan/execution should be the same either way.
If there is correlation between station & channel, then you might look at creating a multivariate statistics object and analyzing the table so the planner can make better choices
There is no where clause so I'm doubtful there is much to be gained going down this path. The Index-Only scan seems like an optimal way to obtain this data and the existing query already does that. The aggregation path might vary though it seems like that shouldn't be the case here.
David J.
|
