Hi, Pavel
Thank you for your reply.
> the LIMIT clause is in this case totally useless and messy, and maybe can
> negative impacts optimizer
Yes. After removing the LIMIT clause, the performance is improved.
The execution plan shows that the index worked.
We've noticed it, but I don't want to fix the problem by modifying the SQL until I find the cause.
At 2022-10-11 11:32:48, "Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
út 11. 10. 2022 v 5:13 odesílatel gzh <gzhcoder@xxxxxxx> napsal:Hi, TomThank you for your reply.> When you're asking for help, please don't give us vague statements> like "doesn't seem to work".
I understand.
> Did the plan (including rowcount
> estimates) change at all? To what? How far off is that rowcount
> estimate, anyway --- that is, how many rows actually have cseid = 94?
Please refer to the new execution plan (PostgreSQL 12.11) below.
new=# show enable_seqscan;
enable_seqscan
----------------
on
(1 行)
new=# select count(*) from analyze_word_reports;
count
----------
21331980
(1 行)
new=# select count(*) from analyze_word_reports where (cseid = 94);
count
---------
1287156
(1 行)
new=# explain analyze select count(2) from analyze_word_reports where (cseid = 94) limit 1;
QUERY PLAN
the LIMIT clause is in this case totally useless and messy, and maybe can negative impacts optimizerRegardsPavel----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit (cost=65184.06..65184.07 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=123.713..133.035 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Finalize Aggregate (cost=65184.06..65184.07 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=123.712..133.033 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Gather (cost=65183.85..65184.06 rows=2 width=8) (actual time=123.548..133.024 rows=3 loops=1)
Workers Planned: 2
Workers Launched: 2
-> Partial Aggregate (cost=64183.85..64183.86 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=119.495..119.496 rows=1 loops=3)
-> Parallel Index Only Scan using analyze_word_reports_index_cseid on analyze_word_reports (cost=0.56..6290
9.34 rows=509805 width=0) (actual time=0.031..98.706 rows=429052 loops=3)
Index Cond: (cseid = 94)
Heap Fetches: 1287156 Planning Time: 0.122 ms Execution Time: 133.069 ms
(11 行)
new=# explain analyze select 2 from analyze_word_reports where (cseid = 94) limit 1;
QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Limit (cost=0.00..0.43 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=2156.964..2156.966 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on analyze_word_reports (cost=0.00..528550.75 rows=1223533 width=4) (actual time=2156.962..2156.964 rows=1 loops=
1)
Filter: (cseid = 94)
Rows Removed by Filter: 18320180 Planning Time: 0.086 ms Execution Time: 2156.985 ms
(6 行)
> If the estimate is far off, then increasing the table's statistics
> target might help.
Thank you for your advice.
Please tell me how to set the table's statistics up to improve performance.
new=# select oid from pg_class where relname = 'analyze_word_reports';
oid
-------
16429
(1 行)
new=# select attrelid,attname,attstattarget from pg_attribute where attrelid=16429 and attname='cseid';
attrelid | attname | attstattarget
----------+---------+---------------
16429 | cseid | -1
(1 行)
> Another thing that would be worth checking is whether
> "set enable_seqscan = off" prods it to choose the plan you want.
> If not, then there's something else going on besides poor estimates.
"set enable_seqscan = off" works, and the performance is greatly improved, which is almost the same as PostgreSQL 8.4.
The enable_seqscan(PostgreSQL 8.4) is on, will this change have an unknown effect on other queries?
At 2022-10-10 10:45:54, "Tom Lane" <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >gzh <gzhcoder@xxxxxxx> writes: >> I've run analyze(not vacuum analyze), but it doesn't seem to work. > >When you're asking for help, please don't give us vague statements >like "doesn't seem to work". Did the plan (including rowcount >estimates) change at all? To what? How far off is that rowcount >estimate, anyway --- that is, how many rows actually have cseid = 94? > >If the estimate is far off, then increasing the table's statistics >target might help. > >Another thing that would be worth checking is whether >"set enable_seqscan = off" prods it to choose the plan you want. >If not, then there's something else going on besides poor estimates. > > regards, tom lane
